The Commerce Clause, The Aca, And Federalism

The American Constitution provides for a division of government powers between the federal and state governments, as well as provides solutions in an event of conflict between these two governments. The Supremacy Clause is derived through Constitutional Law and determines that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties contain the “supreme law of the land”, creating the framework for the highest areas of law within the American legal system. Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution contains The Supremacy Clause.

    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.)

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

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Despite its silence as to the effect of that affirmative power, federal courts have recognized the Framers’ wish to create a unified national market and have found a dormant congressional authority in it. Since the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), that dormant authority has limited state regulations that burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of congressional regulation. Congress has the power only to restrict the scope of permissible state regulation but it does not absolutely preclude states from affecting commerce. "[T]he states retain authority under their police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern', even though interstate commerce may be affected." A challenged statute is upheld if its effect on interstate commerce is merely incidental. On the other hand, a state regulation that is facially or practically discriminatory will be defeated unless it shows a legitimate local purpose that cannot be accomplished by any less discriminatory alternatives.

The Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states’, are reserved to the states’ respectively, or the people (List of Amendments to the United States Constitution). The Bill of Rights is a clear establishment of the restrictions on Federal authority. James Madison, along with numerous other framers, feared the monarchical powers. The framers fought against the tyrannical rule of the King, setting forth the foundation upon which the colonies designed their government and consequently led to the authoring and ratification of the Constitution. The US Constitution’s purpose can be said to have been to fill in the gaps of all the unenumerated powers of the states. This is where we begin to understand the confusion of two centers of power with sovereign authority. Which one leads the nation by authority? Or as I like to say, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The Supremacy Clause was set forth to dispel the issues that confuse us all between the federal law and state law. Article VI of the Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every

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

National supremacy refers to the idea that when there is a conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law takes precedence. It comes from the Supremacy Clause in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The clause makes the United States Constitution, its treaties, and its federal laws the highest laws in the land.

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

Though there are a plethora of Supreme Court cases relying on the dormant Commerce Clause to invalidate state laws in order to uphold a national free market, there is also a long history of dissenting justices in dormant Commerce Clause cases. For instance, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas commonly criticize the dormant Commerce Clause in their opinions. This lack of cohesion among Justices over the very existence of the legal concept makes it challenging for states to determine whether they are crafting Constitutional legislation and difficult for district and appeals judges to decide cases.

The central point on deciding on if a rule is part of the commerce clause is to see whether it regulates an act in an existing commercial activity. In this case the key point of contention, “Individual Mandate”, does not control a commercial activity that already exists, on the contrary “it compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product.” The power of commerce is not something used to force individual behaviors. In this case “Individual Mandate” is simply forcing individuals to enter to commerce because they have opted to refrain from it. Therefore commerce clause should be used by the congress when it is regulates existing commercial activity and when there is a connection between

Gradually, over the development of U.S. history, the tension between the rights of the federal and

The United States Constitution is a written document that provides the framework for the federal government and is ultimately the supreme law for Americans to abide by. This document “establishes the structure of the federal government, delegates powers to the federal government, and guarantees certain fundamental rights (Cheeseman, 2007, p. 49).” These fundamental rights, laws and freedoms are granted, to all Americans. Despite the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the laws still pertain to today’s ever-changing economy and culture. The Constitution has been referred to as a “living” document that evolves in unison with our country. The comprehension of the Commerce

Throughout the history of this nation, the Constitution, from the formation to the execution thereof, has set forth the precedent for the demonstration of excessive federal power that is clearly illustrated by history and modern America. Sufficient documentation to back up this premise includes primary documents such as James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, the Constitution of the United States, and other historical pieces. Ample consideration should be given to the paramount decisions of America’s elected officials in critical moments as well in the very construction of the American system of government that favors federalism.

The primary function and role of law within business and society in general is to provide regulation for the ability of organizations and individuals to earn (and in more than one case to spend) money. This statement is particularly true of the federal government's role in enforcing laws within the workplace and its surrounding society. While individual states have laws that must be in accordance to precepts provided for in the United States Constitution, the federal government can preempt individual state laws via federal ones, as occurred in the Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al. Supreme Court decision. Additionally, the federal government has specifically been given regulation power of interstate commerce generally known as the Commerce Clause. Essentially, the Commerce Clause is the legal term for the invocation of Congress's right to regulate activity between, and in many instances even within, states. It can do so with a broad range of authority which allows for some fairly wide interpretations as to what constitutes interstate activity.