“Does it specifically cite what law?
See Wickard v. Filburn, a case in which the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as being constitutional in one of the worst examples of judicial activism yet. According to this ruling it would appear that food grown/raised for your own use is “in interstate commerce” and thus subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
When examining whether some activity was considered “Commerce” under the Constitution, the Court would aggregate the total effect the activity would have on actual economic commerce. Intrastate activities could fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if those activities would have any rational effect on Interstate Commerce. Finally, in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), the Court said the 10th Amendment “is but a truism” and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power. 312 U.S. 100 at 124.
In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In 1942, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which sought to stabilize wide fluctuations in the market price for wheat by stabilizing supply through quotas. The Court’s decision rejected former decisions that seemed to focus on “Whether the subject of the regulation in question was production, consumption, or marketing. Those formalistic characterizations were
not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity: is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’
Congress could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one’s own land, for one’s own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption was sufficiently large as to impact the overall goal of stabilizing prices.
This change in the Court’s decisions is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, in which the Court shifted from engaging in judicial activism to protect property rights, to a paradigm which focused most strongly on protecting civil liberties.[11] It did so by destroying the civil liberty to grow whatever crops one chose on ones own land for personal use.
For example, if I choose to grow an orange tree on my property, the feds will argue that by growing oranges for my own personal use, I am foregoing purchasing oranges from Florida at my local grocery store, thereby impacting interstate commerce by reducing the demand of oranges from Florida.
To the feds, that makes my orange tree a part of interstate commerce.
Now, Florida does not have a right to a permanent, flourishing market for its oranges, but a good central planning czar might think there is some potential overriding interest in sustaining the Florida orange market, and therefore make my personal growth of oranges illegal.
Either that, or they will deem my personal orange supply to be "Cadillac oranges," and mandate that I purchase a certain amount of Florida oranges anyway, to preserve the national Florida orange market.
They'll say that it's not fair that so many people are growing their own oranges, and if the Florida orange market collapses due to low demand or unregulated competition, the inner city poor and minorities won't have their fair share of oranges.
-PJ