[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'.

[gondramB]

>>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'.<<

I'm not on their side - but I'm acknowledging that the wheat decision sounds an awful like pot and machine gun cases and what I thought was outrageous new violation of the constitution is in fact a repeat of "settled law."