Roscoe Filburn chose not to engage in commerce but the US Supreme Court found that not engaging in commerce affects interstate commerce due to the fact that such a decision removes demand on an product traded between the states. In this case wheat.
Their decision was one that allowed the government the power to force individuals to engage in commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
ObamaCare leans heavily on this false interpretation of the Commerce Clause, one made under duress of the Great Depression. Of course, the intent of the commerce clause was to promote, as much as possible, voluntary trade among the states so as to make trade free flowing ... regular. It was in that vein that the federal government was allowed the power to regulate trade --- to make trade regular whether among the states or with other nations.
Is that what ObmaCare does? Does ObamaCare promote free and voluntary trade or does it stifle trade in bureaucracy, fines, penalties and coercion? How is ObamaCare materially different from the barriers to trade that once promised our nation weakness? None.
It is likely that ObamaCare will be found unconstitutional, but ObamaCare's real impact will be more than political. That real impact will be the direct result of ObamaCare's overreach via its reliance on the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause will be reigned in by overturning Wickard Vs Filburn...