Originally posted by airforce:
It brings to mind this case:
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.
Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat to feed his chickens and, since he was growing more than he was allowed to (according to the amount of acreage he owned), he was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine. The Supreme Court, using the "Commerce Clause," affirmed the penalty--even though he was growing the wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
Onward and upward,
airforce This is the one that the retards in Washington use to regulate EVERYTHING .
"Commerce Clause"
My Ass .
