What is the significance of the interstate commerce clause

Do you agree that something with a negative value such as garbage should be considered an article of commerce? Do you think New Jersey's ban on the importation of out-of-state garbage was motivated by environmental concerns?

If New Jersey's law were upheld, and other states enacted similar bans, would the environment be better off for it? If a garbage importation ban is unconstitutional, why is it okay to ban baitfish or diseased animals? Would a state ban on radioactive waste be constitutional in the absence of Congressional action?

If states were free to restrict the shipment out of state of important resources wildlife, coal, oil, timber, corn , how often would they do it? Is there a danger that a state with a near monopoly on a resource would try to corner the market or hoarde the resource for its own citizens? It's pretty clear that Madison's ban on milk Dean Milk Co. Should that affect the constitutional analysis? If and when an efficient means is developed for inspecting for parasite-carrying baitfish, does the Maine baitfish ban upheld by the Court suddenly become unconstitutional?

In Hunt , if Washington state gave "A" grades to apples that merited a lesser grade from the USDA, would the case have come out the same way, or would the stronger interest in avoiding consumer confusion then overcome the discriminatory effect on interstate commerce?

If a state set a speed limit of 50 miles per hour on all of its highways, would the law be constitutional? If it is, what about a speed limit of 40 miles per hour? When do the burdens on interstate commerce clearly outweigh the life-saving local benefits that come from a lower speed limit? In Bibb v Navajo Freight , the Court invalidated an Illinois requirement that trucks us contoured mudguards when surrounding states required straight mudguards.

What is only a slight majority of states favored one type of mudguard? Does Bibb suggest that a law in one state might be unconstitutional at the same time an identical law in another state say, a contoured mudguard requirement in Hawaii might be constitutional?

The Court says non-discriminatory state laws burdening interstate commerce will only be struck down when the burdens are "clearly excessive" in relation to the local benefits. How clearly excessive?

What if the interstate commerce costs outweight the local benefits 3 to 2? What about 2 to 1? Does Reeves suggest that states are free to favor their own citizens with respect to a large-variety of state-owned resources, such as universities, parks, and beaches? Could a state say that it will only buy automobiles for its highway patrol, etc. Introduction The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy.

To address the problems of interstate trade barriers and the ability to enter into trade agreements, it included the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. The international commerce power also gave Congress the power to abolish the slave trade with other nations, which it did effective on January 1, , the very earliest date allowed by the Constitution. But, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, the "enumeration" of three distinct commerce powers in the Commerce Clause "presupposes something not enumerated, and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State.

Ogden Marshall, C. So, for example, even when combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause giving Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution its enumerated powers, the Commerce Clause did not give Congress power to touch slavery that was allowed by state governments within their borders.

The text of the Commerce Clause raises at least three questions of interpretation: What is the meaning of "commerce"? What is the meaning of "among the several states"? And what is the meaning of "to regulate"? Some have claimed that each of these terms of the Commerce Power had, at the time of the founding, an expansive meaning in common discourse, while others claim the meaning was more limited.

In addition to other pervasive evidence of the public meaning of these terms, the slavery issue helps clarify the original public meaning of these terms at the time of their enactment. Among the several states meant between one state and others, not within a state, where slavery existed as an economic activity.

From the founding until today, the meaning of "commerce" has not been much changed. Perhaps its only expansion by the Supreme Court came in when the Court held that commerce included "a business such as insurance," which for a hundred years had been held to be solely a subject of internal state regulation. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Instead, the modern growth of Congress's regulatory powers has been allowed by the courts adopting an expansive reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause to give Congress power over a broad range of intrastate economic activities with a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, when such regulation is essential to the regulation of interstate commerce narrowly defined.

Darby , the "power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. Maryland But in McCulloch , Chief Justice Marshall insisted that "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal. Thus, the Court expanded Congress power over interstate commerce in a way that gave it power over the national economy.

In the s, the Rehnquist Court treated these New Deal cases as the high water mark of congressional power. In the cases of U. Lopez and U. Morrison , the Court confined this regulatory authority to intrastate economic activity. In addition, in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich , Justice Scalia maintained that, under Lopez , "Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.

Most recently, in the health care case of NFIB v. Darby, U. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, U. McClung, U. The Court failed to note that to some extent, the three categories are intertwined. For instance, the first category, the regulation of "streams" or "channels" of commerce, allows regulation of the creation, movement, sale and consumption of merchandise or services.

But the initial extension of the "streams" of commerce analysis by the Court to intrastate trade was justified by the "effect" of these other activities on commerce. See NLRB v.

Similarly, the second category, which allows the regulation of such instrumentalities of commerce as planes, trains or trucks, is also based on the theory that a threat to these instrumentalities "affects" commerce, even if the effect is local in nature.

Southern Railway Company v. Thus, the final category identified by the Court appears to be a catch-all for all other activities which "substantially affect" commerce.

The Court rejected arguments that possession of guns in school zones affected the national economy by its negative impact on education. But see United States v. McCoy, F. In , Mr. See , e. In Morrison , a female plaintiff brought suit under the act against two men who had allegedly assaulted and raped her. The plaintiff asserted that her right to be free from gender-associated violence had been violated, and therefore, she was entitled to monetary damages.

See Morrison , U. Stewart, F. For example, numerous federal circuit courts have upheld the constitutionality of federal child pornography statutes that criminalize intrastate possession by finding the activity sufficiently connected to Congress's broader scheme of regulating the interstate commercial market for child pornography.

Adams, F. Hampton, F. Corp, F. Kallestad, F. Angle, F. Rodia, F. Robinson, F. Buculei, F. Galo, F. Bausch, F. According to the Supreme Court, "[a] facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. Salerno, U. An "as applied" challenge is less difficult to sustain than a facial challenge because the challenger has to establish only that the statute is invalid when applied to the specific set of factual circumstances presented.

Thus, some scholars had posited that since Lopez and Morrison were decided, "as applied" challenges to federal statutes for violation of the Commerce Clause would be more successful than facial challenges.

See Brannon P. Raich v. Ashcroft, F. Gonzales v. Raich, U. Lynch , F. Odom, F. Johnson, F. Peterson, F. Ryan, F. Wang, F. Ramey, F. Rayborn, F. Raich , F. Ashcroft , F. McCoy , F. Walters , F. Federal efforts to regulate it considerably blur the distinction between what is national and what is local. United States , U. Justice Scalia, via a separate opinion, concurred only in the Court's judgment. See id. In addition, Justice Thomas filed his own dissenting opinion.

Wickard v. Filburn , U. Raich , U. The Court noted that the while the marijuana market is an illegal or illicit market, this fact appears to be of no legal or constitutional significance as Congress's power arguably encompasses both lawful and unlawful interstate markets.

Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions. Sebelius: Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Although no other Justice joined Chief Justice Roberts' opinion, four dissenting Justices reached similar conclusions regarding the Commerce Clause.

Second, it prohibits any regulations or laws at the state level that would interfere with Congressional authority. The Commerce Clause is a crucial part of the Constitution, as it defines the extent of the federal government's ability to control the country's economy.

The application of the Commerce Clause is a frequent point of discussion in economic policy debates, as there are common disagreements about how the government should wield these powers. Typically, the powers listed in the Commerce Clause are divided into three sections:.

Most discussions of how the Commerce Clause should be applied are focused on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Generally, a person's view of the Commerce Clause is tied to their political leanings. Liberals, for example, often believe that this clause provides broad powers to the government, while conservatives believe the clause should be strictly interpreted so that the government's control of the economy will be limited.

In the Constitution, the federal government is granted some powers. However, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are granted to the states. When Congress passes laws that dictate the economic activity of states and their citizens, they will usually cite the Commerce Clause.