Pros And Cons Of Commerce Clause

The case created two principles in Constitutional law. First, Congress is allowed to implement the Constitution’s express powers to create a national government. Second, state action may not hinder Constitutional exercise of power.

It is important because it brings a balance of power by allowing states to make their own laws and still keeping the national government as the supreme decider for situations when conflict arises. In Gibbons v. Ogden, New York tried to monopolize on steamboat operations. The federal government has the power to regulate any and all interstate activity under the Commerce clause and this is enforced through the Supremacy clause. New York exercised an authority that is reserved to the federal government through the Commerce clause. As a result of the Supremacy Clause, Congress is given power over the states. Any nature of interstate commerce fell under federal government jurisdiction. In the Gibbons v Ogden case, the Supreme Court upheld broad congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, stating that the New York Law was invalid by virtue of the supremacy clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress. This case is an example of federalism were the Federal government is given a power that over the states and supersedes States’

The US Constitution (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) gives Congress the power to regulate both interstate and intrastate commerce. Normally, only the Federal government interferes with business activity within a state while one would expect Congress to deal with the larger interstate matters. As in the article, Congress’ powers extend to any matters of commerce within the state that collide with regulations of interstate trade. Otherwise, the clause would contradict itself in allowing commerce within the state to somewhat go against rules and regulations governing commerce among the states.

This paper examines the historical extension of the federal government's power through the application of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). Also, the paper will give the reader a better understanding of the original need for the Commerce Clause, the early interoperation, and the current extended interpretation, which include its impact on the states and citizens. The paper will also give examples of how the Commerce Clause was defined by using Supreme Court Cases.

This case determines whether or not the Ordinance 02-02 of Polishtown violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate franchise companies, and whether the burden of interstate business outweighs local benefit. After hearing the Petitioner and Defendant briefs I voted to affirm the appellate court’s decision that ordinance in question violates the Dormant Commerce Clause and therefore is rendered invalid. My decision stems from three factors: 1) the ordinance is in direct contradiction of the Dormant Commerce Clause by establishing regulations that aim to directly discriminate interstate franchise corporations. 2) Polishtown does not adequately provide legitimate purpose to justify these discriminatory regulations.

In what could be an odd twist for President Trump’s populist-nationalist brand of conservatism, the anti-commandeering principles articulated in Justice Scalia’s Printz v. United States opinion may be the precedent that informs and drives the outcome of much of the Supreme Court’s upcoming caseloads. The tension between our federal government’s jurisdiction and the rights of the States dates back to our founders and the Articles of Confederation,(p60) in which sovereign states delegated power to a central government for specified purposes only. It emerged again in the disagreements between the Anti-Federalists (p91) and Federalists(p97) in the effort to ratify our Constitution and the concession to George Mason, James Madison and Thomas

In Garcia v, San Antonio Metro. Travel Authority, 469 U.S. 528, (1985) where the court discovered "that Congress has a specific force, it doesn't make a difference whether it meddles with the states' laws. As far as possible on the trade control, the constitution itself is the procedure by which it is directed." Congress has the power to manage interstate expressways that are financial in nature.

Also in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution the commerce clause is stated. In the expressed powers, it says that Congress can ‘regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes.’According to the article on Cornell Law School, the actual word “ commerce” is not clarified anywhere in the Constitution so this clause can also be manipulated depending on the

Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word "commerce" is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress' power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a

A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to “enjoin” Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce. When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is intercoursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety. The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal

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.)

Imagine taking a leap into a new industry. Putting all your eggs into one basket and end up hatching an accomplished company. Being at the forefront of a rapidly expanding market until one day, one state says you are no longer allowed to sell your product there. They have decided they no longer will allow you to continue to sell your products there, thus suffering serious losses. This company has become your life and it is being threatened by just one law from one state. Should states be allowed to create laws that could have national repercussions?

Commerce Clause The commerce clause is located in Article 1, Section 8 and clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. According to the commerce clause, the Federal government has the right to regulate commerce among the U.S. and foreign nations and some states. The commerce clause has led to great controversy for many years. The commerce clause gives congress authority to legislate in many areas or address a broad range of issues.

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.

The Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez (1995) set an important change to the Federalism era of cooperative, when it limited the power of Congress under the commerce clause for the first time. The Courts in this case took into the account not the board powers of Congress which have received extreme expansive over the years through interpretation but the limitations of these powers. According, to Gibbons v Ogden, the commerce power “is complete in itself, may be excised to its utmost extent, and knowledge’s no limitations, and other than are prescribed in the constitution.” However, there is limitation here too, the Gibbons Court points out. “Commerce power does not comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal and does not extend