[USAFNoDak]

I'm not a lawyer so I won't go too far here. However, I seem to recall that the USSC ruled in favor of the feds regarding someone growing wheat or some other ag product on their own property for sale within their own neighborhood, county or state. They tried to get around federal agriculture pricing rules since their product was not going to move in "interstate" commerce.

However, the feds argued, and the USSC agreed (again if my memory serves me correctly) that any agriculture product sold within a state would have an "impact" on the same agriculture product which moved in "interstate" commerce. Here was there reasoning. The people in a certain state would use or consume X amount of agriculture product Y moving in interstate commerce. If someone began to supply Z amount of that product for "intrastate" commerce, it would reduce the amount X of product Y moving into the state via "interstate" commerce. Thus, the feds had regulatory authority to set the price which product Y could be sold for, even if a part of product Y had never moved in "interstate" commerce.

How's that for stretching the Interstate Commerce Clause? I hope someone will reply here with the case I'm thinking of and I hope my memory is accurate on this. My apologies ahead of time if I'm not remembering this with 100% correctness.

Edited to clarify: The case was "Wickard vs. Filburn" and was about how much wheat could be grown on someone's private property. There was a limit set by the federal government to keep wheat prices stable. Do a search on "Wickard vs. Filburn" for the details. Filburn grew more than his limit, but argued that it was only for his own personal use. Since it was for his own personal use, he argued that the wheat allocation was not applicable to him as his wheat would not be moving in "interstate" commerce, and therefor he was outside of the federal regulations for how much wheat could be grown on his property. He lost due to the interstate commerce clause interpretation by the USSC.