Wickard vs. Filburn

Wickard vs. Filburn is a court case involving a farmer who went over a quota of what he could grow and harvest of wheat. His argument was that the excess was for his farm and family and therefore shouldn't be considered under the commerce clause, or rather that if there was an effect it was trivial. I can understand the want or need for legislation that brought order to an otherwise chaotic situation, but can we, as Americans not see the importance of this situation? If interpreted as so, that food grown for our family and farm be considered as something that can be regulated by the government, then we are wholly in subject to that government.

Indeed this court case was one of many that has opened the door for all liberty in this country to be stolen away in any situation, deemed by a small percentage of the population, as "necessary and proper." In fact I actually would have agreed with the court had they specifically stated that as long as you don't sell any wheat you can grow and do whatever with it as long as it doesn't leave your farm. That is not what the case said though. According to the case, if the amount allotted to him for how much wheat he could grow was not enough to sustain his farm, then he would have to purchase the rest. There is a big difference. In what I have said, the government could have regulated commerce and preserved liberty, in what the Court said, liberty was taken away.

I thought about putting possible things that government could tell you what to do under this clause, but I think I should let you imagine possible interpretations. And if I have interpreted anything wrong from this case please enlighten me.