Emanations indeed, ForGod's Sake!
As I understand the Court's thinking in this case, the fact that people grow wheat for strictly personal consumption has an effect on the interstate market prices of wheat because such growers, having secured their own wheat supply by the sweat of their own brow, are not market participants for wheat. Because they are not market participants, they have an effect on general (interstate) market prices. That's because, to the extent they grow their own wheat, they reduce market demand proportionately; and where there is reduced demand, reduced prices follow....
Evidently this was the logic behind the astonishingly weird holding in Wickard vs. Filburn, whose main basis was (to me) an extraordinarily bizarre reading of he Commerce Clause. Under this reading, there is no "private behavior" that could ever be beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Presumably, not even breathing — after all, we all "share" the same air....
Certainly the Framers never imagined, let alone intended, the Commerce Clause to be so omnipotent in its reach....
Great to hear from you, ForGod'sSake! Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post!
Agreed! I suspect most of the Framers being erudite men of some substance as well as students of the human condition were not likely blind to the possibility. One has to wonder if they considered the potential of a future federal income tax that would allow an almost limitless supply of feral funds which could be used for bribery, extortion and various protection rackets, not to mention the outright buying of voter blocs?
SHEESH, it's getting late!