Question

In "Wickard v. Filburn," the Supreme Court decided that

A. Not only could congress regulate interstate commerce but it could regulate anything that affected prices and market conditions
B. Congress had improperly used the interstate commerce clause
C. Congress had no authority to regulate commerce
D. Roscoe Filburn was right and he was to be paid $117.11 by the federal government

Answer 1

A. Not only could Congress regulate interstate commerce, but it could regulate anything that affected prices and market conditions.

Step-by-step explanation:

In "Wickard v. Filburn," the Supreme Court concluded that Congress had the authority to regulate not just interstate commerce, but also any activity that had a substantial effect on prices and market conditions. This landmark decision expanded the scope of congressional power beyond traditional boundaries.

The case involved Roscoe Filburn, a farmer who exceeded his government-imposed wheat production quota for personal use. Despite the seemingly localized and non-commercial nature of Filburn's actions, the Court ruled that his wheat cultivation impacted overall market conditions by influencing supply and demand dynamics.

This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, allowing Congress to regulate activities with even indirect effects on interstate commerce. The ruling reflected a deference to congressional authority and a recognition of the interconnectedness of economic activities in a modern, complex society. "Wickard v. Filburn" remains a pivotal case in constitutional law, shaping the balance between federal power and individual rights in the context of economic regulation.