Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127-128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer's contention that Congress' admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee's own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a "rational basis" exists for so concluding.
This thread has its roots in a discussion of the recent SCOTUS decision that medical marijuana, as permitted under individual state law, was not permissible under federal law
. The quote above, taken from the decision, illustrates a key point: that the Federal government, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, may regulate any activity for which there is a "rational basis" to conclude that said activity may affect some interstate commerce.
This leaves a lot of wiggle room, as you might imagine. It means that your vegetable garden is subject to federal nitpicking, should Congress so desire.
So, my question is thus: Congress already has this power. Is it possible to persuade congressional representatives to write a new law which would explicity
note that any activity solely within a state's own borders would not be regulable by the Congress (the net effect to restore (what I see as) proper state's rights)?
And I suppose I should add: would this be a good idea or a bad idea? Why or why not?