But no, I don't believe that growing a little extra for personal use would have any discernable effect on market pricing on a national level. And I certainly don't expect the Fed's to knock on my door for having a personal garden (ie. not farming) that I wish to grow some wheat (or any other crop). Their deal may have been with farmers of wheat, corn, tomatoes, peppers, or whatever else, but that should certainly have no bearing on my backyard garden.
Certainly, one could argue that the government should not be interfering with the free market. But, that's a whole different argument.
"Their deal may have been with farmers of wheat, corn, tomatoes, peppers, or whatever else, but that should certainly have no bearing on my backyard garden."
You're starting to slide off the issue. The issue was limited to the wheat farmers, since not too many non-farmers grow their own wheat.
"But no, I don't believe that growing a little extra for personal use would have any discernable effect on market pricing on a national level."
OK. You are entitled to your opinion.
The USSC, however, felt that the cumulative effect of farmers growing their own would have a substantial effect on the demand for wheat. I happen to agree.
WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) is a landmark case which defines when Congress may regulate intrastate commerce.
"That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."
Oh by the way, the court also commented on "price fixing". FYI:
"It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices."