Once planted, it becomes an illegal crop.
This is the problem with the way you phrased your argument, and the reason that I almost didn't respond to it.
You paint a picture of planting harmless little tomatoes in a tiny little garden and ask me how the government could be so authortarian and mean to prevent such an activity. I'm surprised you didn't add little old grandma on social security to your scenario.
Give me a break.
The government has the power. If they ever did regulate tomatoes, you can certainly try to make the case that small producers have no effect on the overall market. (That argument was successful in the Gun-Free Schools Act and the Violence Against Women Act.) But, if local production did have an effect, why would you knowingly subvert Congressional regulatory efforts?
"It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination."
Mr. Justice Jackson, Wickard v. Filburn
Your tomato issue is with Congress, not with the Commerce Clause, not with the U.S. Constitution, not with robertpaulsen. Just because you may have little support for your position is no excuse to find supposed flaws in the the U.S. Constitution or the courts, and seek redress there.
Poor example. The argument against those was not that they didn't have an affect on the market, but that there was no discernible "market" to affect.
No, it does not (at least not through the commerce clause.) The commerce clause applied to farmer Filburn because he was a commercial farmer growing a crop to sell. I am quite confident that if Filburn had been a subsistence farmer who sold none of his production, then the decision would have gone the other way. Besides, it's pretty tough to fine a guy based on a percentage of price support he receives if the support is nothing.
Your tomato issue is... not with robertpaulsen.
The only issue I have with you is that debating you is like talking to a brick wall. If congress tried to regulate little old grandma (to use your words) growing tomatoes based on the commerce clause, that regulation would get tossed by the courts in a heartbeat.