In their own words commercial Consumption and commercial Production are both commerce. Remember, if he had used less than 11.1 acres there would have been no problem so this was significant production and significant consumption.
"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us...[b]ut even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"[4]
In other words, the fact he was Producing wheat or just Using wheat does not side step the issue. He was both a consumer and producer of wheat and thus clearly impacting the wheat market. That final bit just means picking if was a direct or indirect impact does not matter.
Now, I and others may not agree with the interpretation. But, it's not so crazy as to be a clear mistake.
Which is why I said farming wheat in such a way that it is separated from the market aka not harvesting it, would have been a useful but different argument.
That's exactly what I said. I was refuting the analogy above about CPUs. It had nothing to do with feeding the wheat to animals. It was simply because his growing of wheat affected how much wheat he would buy from the market.
How he used it has little impact, but the fact he used it does. If he planted but did not harvest wheat then there would have been no impact on the market. The fact he used it implied there was a connection to the market.
It's been clarified but not overturned.
To expand my point for clarity:
In their own words commercial Consumption and commercial Production are both commerce. Remember, if he had used less than 11.1 acres there would have been no problem so this was significant production and significant consumption.
"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us...[b]ut even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"[4]
In other words, the fact he was Producing wheat or just Using wheat does not side step the issue. He was both a consumer and producer of wheat and thus clearly impacting the wheat market. That final bit just means picking if was a direct or indirect impact does not matter.
Now, I and others may not agree with the interpretation. But, it's not so crazy as to be a clear mistake.
Which is why I said farming wheat in such a way that it is separated from the market aka not harvesting it, would have been a useful but different argument.