What gripes me the most about Wickard v. Filburn is that at it’s core, it’s basically a government declaration that it’s wrong for a person to try to be self-sufficient.
Yes.
It was a horrible decision.
It never should have even been allowed to be considered from the gov’t point of view.
That opened the door to courts actually considering “the butterfly effect”, meaning that any possible action by anyone should be regulate-able by the government.
The court should have demanded proof of demonstrable actual injury to whom in particular, and to what specific degree. End of case. Which chicken feed provider could actually document an injury? Had he stopped buying feed from someone after years of support? Hardly likely.