Article 1, section 8, clause 3 grants to the U.S. Congress the power:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;The events leading up to this case were these:
- The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 established limits on the amount of wheat any given farmer was allowed to grow.
- In July of 1940 Filburn was given notice that he would be allowed to plant wheat on 11.1 acres.
- In the Fall of 1940 Filburn planted 23 acres of wheat.
- In the Spring of 1941 he harvested an additional 239 bushels of wheat from the 11.9 acres he had planted in excess of his allotment. He never sold any of this excess wheat, but kept it for his own consumption.
I would like you to consider:
- Is there any activity in which you can engage in which it is impossible to involve commerce of some form?
- If it could possibly involve commerce, then by the logic of the Marshall court, it is subject to the laws of the federal government, even if you decide to not engage in commerce.
- The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If all activity is under the purview of federal authority, then what does this mean?
- Federal Criminal Drug Laws
- Federal regulation of a local Chicago meat market
- The subjugation of a local Pennsylvania steel manufacturer to the National Labor Relations Boar
- Many more federal laws regulating individual conduct, many of which may have laudable goals, but are really the responsibility of the State and local governments, who are really in a better position to craft rules appropriate to their local populations.