Wickard v. Filburn

[A18]

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

The Supreme Court upheld the application of amendments to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to the production and consumption of homegrown wheat.

[Emsworth]

The term "commerce," as originally used, is synonymous with trade: buying, selling, and transporting for these purposes. The production of goods precedes commerce, and is not a part of it. Agriculture, for example, does not fall under the term "commerce."

If we accept that agriculture is a form of commerce, then grave problems relating to interpretation would arise. The Constitution grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." How can one conduct agriculture "with foreign Nations?" How can one conduct agriculture "with the Indian Tribes?"

Secondly, the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate any activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce. In fact, if the substantial effects test is truly supported by the commerce clause, then most of the other powers would have been redundant. Bankruptcy, for example, definitely has a substantial effect on interstate commerce; so do copyrights and patents. Yet, the Constitution specifies these areas separately. The most clear and natural indication, then, is that Congress may only regulate certain forms of commerce itself, not anything that might have an effect on commerce.

Hence, the decision was unsound.

[A18]

Although the Supreme Court had already made it clear they hated the Tenth Amendment, this was the case that assured liberals there were no limits on congressional power.

Constitutionally unsound.