Answer :
Final answer:
The Supreme Court found against Roscoe Filburn because his wheat production, intended for personal use, could affect national wheat prices and thus fell under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Explanation:
The Supreme Court case involving Roscoe Filburn touched on issues regarding the regulation of agricultural production and its impact on interstate commerce. The basis for the Supreme Court's decision against Roscoe Filburn was grounded in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The central argument was that even though Filburn's excess wheat production was for his personal use, it still had a cumulative effect on interstate commerce because if farmers like Filburn grew their own wheat, they would not buy wheat on the open market. This would reduce the overall market demand and potentially depress wheat prices nationally. Consequently, it was ruled that Congress could regulate activities that, in aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, which includes personal cultivation and consumption of crops.
Throughout the early 20th century, farmers faced numerous challenges including predatory practices of railroad companies, overproduction, falling commodity prices, and the non-cooperative stance of the government in price stabilization efforts. The decision against Filburn can be seen as part of a broader context where the federal government began to take more proactive steps in regulating agricultural production to stabilize prices and prevent economic disruptions caused by the agricultural sector.
