Pros And Cons Of Commerce Clause

The Louisiana Purchase was a seminal event for a new nation that caused heated debates to just how constitutional this deal of land was. Due to Jefferson’s familiarity with the French during his time in France as an American envoy. Another factor that led Jefferson to purchase of this vast land, was his understanding of the potential dangers of the French military. Posted on the Mississippi River, controlling the ports, and what can enter and leave, this would make trade for the United States much more difficult. The deal was instantly popular but soon found

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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 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

As a Federalist, Marshall exerted great influence over the other members of the Court to support federal supremacy over state sovereignty. The Supreme Court's decision in Gibbons used the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8,Clause 3), Article I, Section 9, and the Supremacy Clause to prevent states from subordinating the federal government to state laws. The Marshall Court tended to fall to the nationalist definition of federal power, implying that federal law had power over that of the states. While many saw this as doubting state rights, the Court's decisions usually benefited the whole of the nation, whereas state statutes were designed to benefit and create income only for the individual state. The ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden

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

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.

The issue of National Supremacy is one that is addressed through several cases decided by the Marshall Court. National Supremacy refers to the idea that when a conflict arises between a state law and a federal law, the federal law will take precedence. It comes from the Supremacy Clause in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The clause makes the U.S. Constitution, its treaties, and its federal laws the highest laws in the country. McCullough v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) are two of the most important cases concerning National Supremacy that came to the Supreme Court during John Marshall 's time as chief justice. While McCullough deals with the right of the federal government to create its own bank, Gibbons deals with the right of the federal government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

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.

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?