“but he also grew an extra acre of wheat to harvest to give to his wife to grind into flour…”

This is not correct. The real fact of the case is:

“Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment.”
Source: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59

This same argument could be said this way:

Medical marijuana grown and consumed in California is indistinguishable from marijuana transported across the state line, and therefore does not affect interstate commerce, even in the absence of any legal market in marijuana, unless the prosecutor can prove that it did cross the state line; the Feds having the burden of proof.

If everyone decided they did not want to buy meat anymore but instead decided that they would only eat vegitibles, substantially effecting commerce, do the feds have authority and/or duty to mandate that everyone buy some portion of meat?

If one person made it fasionable to wear boots only as footwear, and everyone only wanted boots and only bought boots, substantially effecting commerce, do the feds have the authority and/or duty to mandate that everyone buy shoes too?

If I were to live in Arizona and grew Cactus as a source of food, do the feds have the authority and duty to make the people of other states eat my Cactus? Because “IF” everyone in Arizona decided that they were going to produce Cactus for the market then it would substantially effect commerce if the feds did not mandate that the “people at large” of other states eat my Cactus.

Does the feds have the authority and/or duty to make everyone stop breathing air for oxygen, and instead buy oxygen in tanks and breath that, because if everyone continues to breath air for oxygen then that has a substantial effect on commerce because everyone would be stealing from the oxygen supply businesses; especially if the oxygen supply business became popular because of all the money that could be made off the people because oxygen is in demand to keep people alive and so the feds would have a duty to mandate that everyone must buy oxygen and breath from the tank, right?

When someone who sells goods, finds the demand for his type of goods is decreasing or is totally gone, he cannot force others to demand his goods, to keep him in business; he must find something else where there is already a demand, and produce it. If he choses he can find some other line of work to make his way in life but cannot mandate for others to create a demand for his goods or create a need for his services. He must find his way and if he cannot then he must beg for food or perish.

The commerce clause was created to make regular, not restrictive the flow of commerce; to assist the flow not the shutting off of commerce; to allow the freedom of not the restriction of commerce; to allow commerce not to deny it the transaction. To make regular, let flow, allow the freedom of commerce so the transaction could be completed with no restriction of no shutting off of or denial of such transaction; and after the transaction was complete, the feds had no more authority or duty to have a hand in any way whatsoever connected to the goods after the transaction is complete. Where there is no further transaction interstate with the item, that is where the fed’s jurisdiction ends.

In constitutional law, there is also a concept called the dormant commerce clause. This is not written into the constitution, but is implied. The dormant commerce clause is the authority of Congress to prevent protectionism between the states. It could come into play in this lawsuit because if this case succeeds and allows states to engage in intrastate commerce that is exempt from Congressional regulations, it could be seen as encouraging states to pass protectionist laws that discourage local industries from participating in interstate commerce.

Thanks for the excellent work. I’ve linked back to your site