The arguments in support of the claim of federal authority to act hinges on the status of the railroad as a registered carrier of interstate commerce. Without that, their entire arguemnt falls apart. Roscoe Filburn was not a registered carrier of interstate commerce.
“giving local residents better rates at the expense of out of state customers”
Assuming this is true, I don’t get the point. Colleges and universities do that to this day, and rather than make them stop the feds subsidize them.
“argument...hinge(s) on the status of the railroad as a registered carrier of interstate commerce”
No, it hinges on the activity under the microscope—charging so and so for intrastate shipping—is “substantially related” to interstate commerce. You can say that’s so because they are interstate carriers, but not so. Because, like I said, they couldn’t regulate any old thing the railroad did. Only that which was substantially related to the carriers’ interstate commerce was regulatable.
Thusly did Shreveport inspire Wickard. It matters not at all that Filburn isn’t a registered interstate rail carried. Shreveport wouldn’t allow the feds to stop him from growing wheat even if he was. Ti qualify under Shreveport he’d have to be involved in interstate commerce, the activity itself would have to be commerce, and it would have to be substantially related to the interstate part if hid operation.
Let me get down to the brass tacks of what’s wrong with Shreveport. The feds want to regulate interstate rail commerce. Fine. They could just control prices on lines that cross state boundaries. They find that some interstate trips take place partly on intrastate lines with unregulated prices. They want to control these prices, too.
Si they go to SCOTUS and say to tgd judges that without power over these intrastate lines their scheme to regulate interstate trips from beginning to end will flounder. So SCOTUS comes up with the “substantially related” test. And his does this pass constitutional muster? By a piece of reasoning that would get an F in Logic 101.
Here’s how it goes: in order to control prices on interstate shipping which travels part if the way on intrastate lines it is necessary to control prices on intrastate lines. Or, in other words, in order to control prices on intrastate lines ut is necessary to control prices on intrastate lines. Talk about circular logic. They want you to think they’re saying in order to regulate interstate rail shipping it is necessary to regulate intrastate rates. But they’re not. If that was the case they could just stick to lines that cross borders.
But they don’t. Because they want to control intrastate prices, too, even if it’s. Not in their power. They pretend as if their constitutional power is to regulate interstate trips from beginning to end, even if part of it takes place on intrastate lines. If that were the case, then yes, it would br necessary to control intrastate rates too. But it isn’t.