[gondramB]

>>Filburn was an Ohio wheat farmer allotted 11 acres -- he planted, however, 23 acres, selling 11 to market at the government-sponsored price (which was 3X world market price) and keeping 12 for his livestock, for seed, and for his family's use. He was allowed to do this, but that required him to either store it or pay a "penalty" of 49 cents per bushel. He refused, saying that Congress did not have the power to regulate his own personal use.

Sound familiar?

The U.S. Supremne Court ruled that Congress did have the power saying, "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. 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 ...".<<


Unfortunately that sounds painfully similar...I will only differ in saying that the viability of farms nationwide might be considered a more compelling case than some others ...but your basic point that we are on ground with precedent I was unaware of is eye opening. I appreciate you taking the time to educate me.

[tpaine]

The government decided to support [unconstitutionally] the wheat market.
--- "Filburn was an Ohio wheat farmer allotted [under the terms of the scheme] 11 acres -- he planted, however, 23 acres, [violating the schemes terms] selling 11 to market at the government-sponsored price (which was 3X world market price) and keeping 12 for his livestock, for seed, and for his family's use."

"He was allowed to do this, but that required him to either store it or pay a "penalty" of 49 cents per bushel".

[A typically bureaucratic mess. He violated the terms of 'the allotment' and should not have gotten the 'support price'.]

"He refused, saying that Congress did not have the power to regulate his own personal use."

They didn't. -- Nor did Congress have the power to pay him 3X world market price.
The USSC should have ignored the whole mess on that basis, but instead compounded the congressional violation by committing a constitutional violation of their own -- in agreeing that the power to regulate includes the 'power to prohibit'.