Having recently read some of the gnat-straining rationalizations of Constitutional interpretation used to arrive at a desired result, and having the iconic movie brought to mind by their juxtaposition, I came up with a highly frivolous but intriguing thought experiment in Constitutional law.
The Facts: Smith is a wealthy man with a quirky sense of the absurd and a fondness for pursuing the trivia of Constitutional law, as a sort of hobby. He owns, and derives a portion of his income from, some arable land located in a still-rural area a dozen or so miles from a major (but not megalopolitan) city – think Raleigh, Des Moines, Fresno for the size.
On his land he erects bleachers along the sides of a field, and in the field installs the minima for a major-league dimensions baseball playing field – diamond, pitcher’s mound, properly graded infield and outfield, etc. He sends, by certified mail, correspondence to the National and American Leagues of Professional Baseball Clubs offering the use of his field at his expense for exhibition games, expecting to recoup his expenses by selling tickets to watch the game, with proceeds to be split 50:50 between himself and the relevant teams or leagues, as they jointly and severally elect. Naturally, he gets no substantive answer.
He reserves the right to grow wheat, for the exclusive use of himself and his extended family, on said field in the absence of any baseball games being played there, any surplus beyond his and his family’s needs to be donated gratis to a local charity to feed the poor and hungry.
The question: Is he engaged in interstate commerce subject to federal regulation in his use of the field? Explain how you arrive at your answer.
He is clearly subject to federal regulation. I may fail this issue-spotting test, but I don’t see the relevance of the baseball thing, except as it might refer to Congress’ antitrust exception for MLB. But that clearly doesn’t vitiate Congress’ authority to regulate; indeed, if we accept its relevance, we concede that authority.
So obviously I missed something else that’s key. What?
"Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is 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.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Like Bricker, I don’t see what baseball has to do with it.
Read the holdings in the syllabus of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (1922). As I read it, the giving of exhibitions between professional baseball teams and the provisions of facilities to do so, even though done for profit and involving interstate travel, is exempted from interstate commerce. Smith is merely making ancillary use of his baseball exhibition field when not in use for its stated primary purpose, just as holding a rock concert at Shea Stadium or Candlestick Park did not void the Mets’ or Giants’ exemption.
As I said, it’s a somewhat frivolous thought experiment, consructed specifically to pit two rather bizarre holdings (MLB is not engaged in interstate commerce, but Farmer Filburn was) against each other.
I linked the Federal Baseball Club case in a recent Game Room thread…maybe the one about the Galleraga blown call/perfect game. IMHO, it represents epic levels of fan wankery to arrive at its final conclusion. Really doubt the case would be decided the same way if it were to be heard today.
In Wickard, the Court pointed out, “That appellee’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.” In the case of MLB, there’s no factual support on the record for an analogous glut of others similarly situated. In other words, Wickard rests on the idea that there are many wheat farmers, and that in aggregate, their output will affect interstate commerce. There is no such factual finding for MLB.
To the extent that Wickard is inconsistent with MLB, MLB is overruled by Wickard.
That is some craziness in that opinion. It basically says, “even though these 14 separate things travel interstate and involve commerce, and sure look like they are interstate commerce, they really aren’t. Next case”.
Surely Wickard and a million other cases have overturned this decision because it’s methods are so ridiculous and out of line with every other decision regarding interstate commerce.
