The constitution (Texas' and/or USA's) is (theoretically) the final authority. It's possible that many things don't have constitutional authorization for state regulation.

Regulating sale of crops (via taxes, quality control standards, defining a vegetable, or even the standardized size of a bushel) seem government rights with exceedingly long precedent. The constitution was signed when the economy was predominantly agricultural.

I appreciate the outcome, even though I detest the, “I’ll use it when it benefits my beliefs” kind of execution.

Does it?

The original intent of the 5th amendment was that even your stuff couldn't be used against you in a court of law. The Founders were all wealthy businessmen committing treason; surely they'd have been in support of a very weak government when they later framed the Constitution.

The USDA is 1862 and some of the more famous events like "The Jungle" [1] leading to food safety laws are well after the Constitution. Getting sick an dieing was just a fact of the old times and I don't think people were like "lets band together and use government to make use get less sick".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act#Hi...

They were in support of a weak government when they wrote the Articles of Confederation. They wrote the Constitution a decade later because that turned out to be such a disaster.

That was supposed to only affect interstate commerce according to the constitution, but a supreme court case in 1942 gave the federal government way more power than originally intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn