Watch out you crazy people!!

You folks in Michigan - and Tim too - because he loves to grow tomatos in his back yard (you didn't hear it here).. might be interested in this one.  In case you thought you had a right to plant a garden... or a crop... check out Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942), which, until recently, was widely considered the most far-reaching expansion of Commerce Clause regulatory authority over intrastate activity.

At issue in Wickard were amendments to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 that set acreage allotments for wheat farmers in an effort to control supply and avoid surpluses that could result in abnormally low wheat prices. The plaintiff in that case, Roscoe Filburn, owned a small farm on which he raised and harvested wheat, among other things. When he exceeded his allotment by 12 acres (which yielded 239 bushels of wheat), he was penalized under the statute. Although the intended [use] of the crop involved in the case was...  “not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm.”

So.. a farmer grew 239 bushels of wheat  on his own property - for consumption completely on his own property.   And he got fined for it.  Why??  read on...

...Homegrown wheat “supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market [and] in this sense competes with wheat in commerce”.

The farmer's crime?  'supplying his own need';  not buying something that someone could sell him.  And so the federal government fined the farmer for employing his own skill, resources and time to grow his dastardly crop instead of going shopping.

You better start hiding your tomato plants Michigan ;)