Ok what was the result of that decision? Quoting the law and the Constitution matters not, quote what resulted of that decision. Laws and decisions are often used wrongly by inferior courts to change the intent of the decision or law and they continue until corrected usually never.
By the way the President is required, by the Constitution, to see that all laws are faithfully enforced, which they never do, in fact most use the selective enforcement of laws to promote their agenda. Notice today that Justice refused to charge an FBI agent with possession of child porn even though he was guilty as sin. How would that work for me or you?
“Ok what was the result of that decision?”
I’m reaching back many years in memory, but my recollection was that a private farmer’s crop, the yield of which went beyond federal limits, could be held in violation of the Act as any surplus (i.e., any yield beyond that which the Act allotted per acre) could not be considered for “personal use” because, collectively (if other farmers did the same thing) it would impact interstate commerce as a “non-personal” crop, and thus subject to the Act.
Now, I do think it is a bad decision. As I think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision; and Plessy v. Ferguson.
But, doesn't apply because the presidential emergency orders are pursurant to acts of congress. ... section 501(b) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5191(b))