Case BriefCon law, commerce clauseBauer 3/7/15Identity of CaseWickard v. Filburn, 1942, page 216Summary of Facts/Procedural HistoryCongress passes the agricultural adjustment act, which purports to limit (among other things) how muchwheat each farmer can produce, whether it is made for home consumption, in state sale, or interstate commerce. Farmer Filburn had to pay a fine because he produced too much wheat, even though the entirety of it seems to be intended for home use. Challenges the constitutionality of the law.Statement of the IssueCan the commerce clause be extended this far? HoldingYes. When considering the aggregate effect that this will have on the wheat market, considering all of the butterflies that flap their wings in peru (all the farmers who grow goods for their own use), it there isan effect on interstate commerce, it is subject to regulation. ReasoningFilburn tried to argue that the wheat had no effect on interstate commerce because it was for home use,it was not sold. But the wheat over the excess would have been purchased from the market if not grown by Filburn, which is where we start to see the effect on the market, particularly if we are allowed to aggregate farmers who utilize similar practices. The wheat industry has been problematic for many years, 16 states did not have enough wheat for their needs and many states have a surplus. This regulation is meant to even tings out and to prevent reliance on foreign wheat (WWII time). Regulating prices is within the power, and regulating amount available is one way to regulate prices…We don’t even need to get to the necessary and proper clause to get here. Evaluation If this is how far the commerce clause extends without invoking necessary and proper, how far can necessary and proper take
View Full Document
Unlocking...