Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever

A case nobody has probably ever heard of is one of the most influential to date and controls more of Americans live than anyone can image.

Wickard v. Filburn
link to Wikipedia
link to Conservapedia

This case gives the federal government the ability to regulate someones activity to engage in a act which has no commercial value because it may indirectly influence the commercial activity somewhere else.

I know that sounds far fetched but it is true.

From wikipedia

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

[edit] Amount of wheat at issue

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn’s 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (45,000 m2) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (93,000 m2) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (48,000 m2) of excess area.[1]

……..

The Court’s decision

The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

This court case precedent will be the centerpiece in the argument between states rights with the Montana and Utah laws on gun rights and commerce recently passed.

An overturning of this case would/could dramatically change how the Federal Government works and put restrictions on the federal government. Anyone who wants a smaller federal government needs to hope that the Supreme court takes up a case which will allow this to be precedent to be overturned. This is more important than any other issue, it if for the continuing existence of states and personal liberty.