…And growing wheat on your own land to feed your own cattle somehow counts as interstate commerce, despite no commerce taking place and the wheat never leaving your property, let alone the state. (Wickard v. Filburn)
Wickard was growing wheat for interstate commerce. The case was about whether the additional wheat he grew for "personal" use was also part of interstate commerce.
It was a creative ruling in multiple senses of the word. They invented the idea from whole cloth and it effectively created new laws from the bench.
> The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore, the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.
There were similar issues dating back to the founding of the country. However nobody pays those any heed because it destroys the ideological claims they're trying to make.
Just around, or slightly around the level of testing that Roe vs Wade prior to Dobbs. Or a bakers dozen of other established precedents that were "one of the more tested legal concepts" until ... recently.
Generally speaking, no: there’s a significant difference in precedent between the two. IANAL, but interstate commerce is explicitly written into the Constitution as the jurisdiction of the federal government and was tested (and generally serially expanded) in court multiple times long before Roe.
Birthright citizenship is explicitly written into the Constitution, yet about a month ago, 2 SCOTUS justices provided opinions and votes suggesting that this detail doesn't matter much.
Unfortunately for Roe v Wade, abortion and a right to privacy aren't explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Interstate commerce is. New York would be entirely in their right to ban Kalshi in New York but not halt operations nationwide.
