The Act disregards the economic liberty that a business possess in order to function in what they believe will maximize their profit in the bounds of existing legislation. In Wickard v. Filburn, the government penalized the plaintiff Filburn, an Ohio farmer, for farming wheat to feed his own animals. Previous to the case, the United States government established limitations on wheat productions in order to regulate the supply and prices of wheat. Congress cited the Commerce Clause as just cause for the legislation. However Filburn was not selling the wheat, but he was only using it to feed his animals. The ruling of this case was that the growing of wheat that Filburn did not allow for the market to benefit from him purchasing into it. Although Filburn single participation would not have interfered with the market, the cumulation of more farmers would have been
The Act disregards the economic liberty that a business possess in order to function in what they believe will maximize their profit in the bounds of existing legislation. In Wickard v. Filburn, the government penalized the plaintiff Filburn, an Ohio farmer, for farming wheat to feed his own animals. Previous to the case, the United States government established limitations on wheat productions in order to regulate the supply and prices of wheat. Congress cited the Commerce Clause as just cause for the legislation. However Filburn was not selling the wheat, but he was only using it to feed his animals. The ruling of this case was that the growing of wheat that Filburn did not allow for the market to benefit from him purchasing into it. Although Filburn single participation would not have interfered with the market, the cumulation of more farmers would have been