[robertpaulsen]

"... backyard gardens, zoning regulations, school boards, building codes, utility rates, state taxes - all these things effect interstate commerce."

That's true. They do. And they are off-limits to the federal government unless the activity, taken collectively, has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating.

Let's take your family with the apple tree example. If we substitute wheat for apples, we have the landmark case that started this whole thing, Wickard v Filburn.

In the 1930's, there was a glut of wheat on the world market. Prices were depressed, and American farmers were filing for bankruptcy. The government's solution was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which limited wheat production but guaranteed the farmers a higher per bushel price. Wickard was the Secretary of Agriculture.

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 ...".

[tpaine]

Let's take your family with the apple tree example. If we substitute wheat for apples, we have the landmark case that started this whole thing, Wickard v Filburn.
In the 1930's, there was a glut of wheat on the world market. Prices were depressed, and American farmers were filing for bankruptcy. The government's solution was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which limited wheat production but guaranteed the farmers a higher per bushel price.

"The government's solution", the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which limited wheat production, was an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment.
There is no delegated power to "limit production" inherent in the commerce clause, or anywhere else in our Constitution.

Congress and the USSC are wrong, and you are 'begging that question' by making a circular argument that they can simply declare that the "-- power to regulate commerce among the several states --" includes the power to limit production.

Get a grip on reality paulsen.

[tacticalogic]

"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 ...".

That the wheat taken for personal use by the growers had a substantial economic affect on interstate commerce is an unproven and highly suspect pretense.

[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.