Dormant Commerce Clause Essay

2) Would it be a violation of equal protection for a state to impose a higher tax on outof-state companies doing business in the state than it imposes on in-state companies if the only reason for the tax is to protect the local firms from out-ofstate competition? Explain.

    The supremacy clause states that the United States Constitution, treaties, federal laws, and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land, if this didn’t exist then states would have more power over the federal government.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 3. The Clause states that the United States Congress shall power, “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to Congress. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez and reversed his conviction, holding that, “Section 922, in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause” (Source 1.)

This document was written in the 18th century specifically during the Federalist Era. It was written 18 years after America won independence from England on July 4, 1776. This lead to the creation of the “Articles of Confederation” which were made primarily for the people because they feared central government having all power. Then at The Annapolis Convention (1786) is where the groundworks of “The U.S. Constitution” were discussed to replace the “Articles of Confederation”.

The Constitution was written in order to replace the Articles of Confederation and create a centralized government. Times continue to change, and therefore laws must be altered such to keep up with those changes. This was the sole purpose of the amending process of the Constitution. The purpose of the very first amendment was to allow Congress the authority to get involved with state powers that was not allowed at first. This article, Article 1, has been very controversial and confusing at times. It has been a part of our judicial system in judgment of laws and their necessity and still affects us today.

Individual states do not need to follow all interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of criminal procedure. The states must only abide by what the Supreme Court sets as minimum thresholds for constitutional guarantees. The states are not precluded from developing workable rules governing arrest, searches and seizures to meet “the practical demands of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement.”

This article, "The Necessary and Proper Clause" also known as "The Elastic Clause," gives Congress the power to broaden its powers and keep Federal balance. Supreme Court Justice Marshall presents an argument that supports Congress' regulation over all commerce. He clearly says, "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." Where the Constitution states, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," the word "among" means intermixed with. Commerce may concern more than one state, therefore Congress needs to act "within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states" The Supreme Court held that the power of Congress includes navigation within its limits in every State. Any state activity that attempts to regulate interstate commerce is completely unconstitutional because in dealing with interstate commerce, it can be inferred from the Constitution that the Federal government must regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution did not provide states with the power to regulate commerce between states so it is imperative that the federal government intercedes. Although the only

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

From 1781 to 1789 the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an ineffective government, however there were some strong steps taken in the articles to try and make the United States a better country. The articles created a loose confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to a central government, known as Congress. Some actions taken by Congress, such as the Treaty of Paris, and certain powers that were given to them were sometimes beneficial to the United States. Nevertheless, in attempting to limit the power of the central government, the Second Continental Congress created one without sufficient power to govern effectively, which led to serious national and international problems. The greatest

across 6 states, allowing the nation to be tied together and to be utilized for internal commerce. Later in Jefferson’s term he set a law that potentially was one of the worst notions during his presidency. In 1807 the Embargo Act was placed with the purpose of attempting to prevent foreign tension with France and Britain by not allowing American ships to any foreign ports and eliminated international trade. “The embargo, however, backfired and brought greater economic hardship to the United States than Britain” (Newman and Schmalbach. 136). While Jefferson’s attempt to preserve the economy failed once he passed the Embargo Act, he later at least recognized his doings during his presidency that it must be repealed. The embargo eventually got repealed in 1809, during James Madison’s term.

This problem was further worsened by the inability of the government to enforce taxes. Rhode Island’s letter to Congress clearly depicts the absence of federal control over state legislatures, as Rhode Island “[rejected] the recommendation of Congress, respecting an impost on imported goods” (doc A). Because each state retained its sovereignty, they could easily accept or reject the demands of Congress. This lack of federal power substantially restrained the government in carrying out its

The Supreme Court has scrutinized the use of the commerce power with a skeptical eye

This statement allowed the federal government the ability to hold the States accountable if they decided to create laws that would discriminate on individuals based on

Furthermore, the “ subjectmatters of the combination and the combination itself are not excluded from the scope of the act as being matters of intrastate commerce and subject to state control.”

One of the many powers given to Congress by the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. This clause allows Congress to regulate commerce between foreign nations, states, and Indian tribes. The authority laid out authorizes Congress to pass laws that ultimately regulate activities of states and citizens and free the restraints of states who feel otherwise. Throughout the history of the United States, the Commerce Clause has caused controversy over the extent that Congress can justify the use of this clause to pass laws. The Supreme Court has been relied on to determine the constitutionality of the laws and settle the controversies. One of these controversies lies within the Supreme Court case of United States v. Lopez.