Doesn't matter. Court held that that characteristic was sufficient to elevate the activity to Federal jurisdiction, which has been used as a lynchpin decision for exploding the Federal regulatory state. Logically speaking, If *pointedly not doing activity in such a way as to not have commerce be interstate makes it interstate commerce by virtue of decreasing one's reliance on interstate commerce, all commerce is, therefore, interstate commerce.

The problem with Wickard v Filburn is that there is literally no activity that doesn't qualify as interstate commerce, when the framers of the constitution clearly intended that "interstate commerce" was not an all-inclusive concept. If that's what they meant, why would they have placed any limits on Federal power? What is the point of having all those redundant words in the constitution?

That's why subsequent courts walked it back. It was an obviously flawed ruling that produces preposterous results.

I mean, can the government prohibit dying (and throw your corpse in jail) because death means buying less food from others? Can the federal government throw you in jail for not having enough children because that reduces the amount spent on baby clothes?