https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I've talked about the Commerce Clause several times. I couldn't understand how it was possible to read the Constitution and come to such an asinine conclusion. Now I see when they screwed up.

You cannot deny that the farmer/rancher willfully disobeyed the governments orders.
The reasoning for the orders is beyond me.  They claim it's price protection.  They could have cooked up any number of reasons against someone and they could've just as easily ignored it as well.  He had the wherewithal to take it to the supreme court speaks of different reasons then those stated.

This is as one of our members pronounce regularly an Andy Roony moment... what's the rest of the story?
The government doesn't want you to do something and we'll cook up anything that we want to keep you from doing it.
As I said, this guy has the wherewithal to take it to the highest court in the land speaks to the underlying problem.

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”.


Since amended.. and not to our benefit.

Because they choose to be heavy handed, insurance companies must be located In the state where they sell their policies. That drives costs.

I don't see any way to read it that gives the government power to stop me from creating what I need. I see power to control legislation in one state that affects trade with the others, but no control over an individual who is producing For himself, not selling into the market, so he can save money.