Commerce clause
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Commerce clause






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Commerce clause Commerce clause Presentation Transcript

  • Article I, Section 8 Clause 3 Commerce Clause Interstate Commerce Bill Conley
  • Introduction
    • Interstate Commerce
      • Business or exchange of commodities (trade), between citizens of different states across state lines.
  • Original intent
    • Reaction to Articles of Confederation
    • Move from plural to singular meaning of the United States of America
      • “…a more perfect Union”
    • Insure flow of trade is free of encumbrances and restrictions
    • Madison in 1928, “power to regulate trade.”
  • Historical expansion
    • Application of the clause has moved from limiting states’ interference with free exchange, to recent attempts to coerce citizens to buy a product; insurance.
  • Early Years
    • Federal Plenary Power
      • Gibbons v. Ogden
          • Chief Justice John Marshall
          • Commerce includes “every species of commercial intercourse”
          • Federal government has complete power if legislated in that area
            • Ogden given exclusive rights by NY through Livingston and Fulton, and Gibbons rights through coasting trade act – Congress 1793
  • Unimplemented Power
    • “Selective exclusiveness”
      • Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
      • Cooley v. Board of Warrens of Port of Authority
      • If Congress hasn’t legislated, states may, unless there is a need for “uniform national control”
  • Increased Congressional Power
    • Interstate Commerce Act 1887 put railroads under federal jurisdiction
    • Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)prohibited combinations or monopolies due to restraint of trade between states or foreign powers
  • Limits on Power
    • U.S. v. E. C. Knight Company (1895)
      • Sherman Act doesn’t apply to sugar monopoly
      • Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it.”
      • “…does not begin until goods commence their final movement from state of their origin to their final destination.”
      • “direct effect” – local activity directly affects interstate commerce
  • Limits on Power
    • Next forty years of restrictive rulings on congressional power in regards to control of mining, farming, fishing, oil production, and generation of hydro-electric power
    • Included in Gibbons was the idea that goods produced, transported, and sold were out of federal reach
  • Viewpoints
    • Some saw these rulings as permission to Congress to increase authority and scope
    • Constructionists say these actions as keeping the trade of goods clear of state restraints concerning transportation of interstate commerce.
    • Most cases before 1900 found against state regulations that encroached on federal areas
  • Early Progressives
    • 1905 Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
      • “ stream of commerce” any local action that becomes part of interstate commerce can be federally regulated
    • 1914 Justice Charles Evans Hughes
      • Federal dominant rule when intrastate and interstate activities are related
  • Court’s Expansion
    • 1908 move to include labor organizations ( Loewe v. Lawlor) was countered by congress passing Clayton Antitrust Act
      • “ the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce “ of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.”
  • Progressive Movement
    • Sought to expand power to create extensive control in gambling (lottery tickets), food processing, and prostitution, and labor.
      • ..closing the channels of interstate commerce to objectionable material
      • Exception to control child labor – limit federal control over conditions under which goods are produced
  • 1930s
    • Supreme Court reverts back to “production-distribution” and “direct effect” distinctions, which angers FDR and he tries to intimidate the court.
    • He succeeds and the Court rejects the narrow interpretations of previous courts.
      • NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp (1937) “close and substantial relation …protect…from burdens
  • Progressive Era
    • New Deal Programs 1940s
      • Labor relations, wages, hours, agriculture, business, and navigable streams
      • U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. –
      • , “prohibition of such shipment (produced under substandard labor conditions) ….is indubitably a regulation of the commerce.”
  • More Progressivism
    • Justice Frank Murphy - 1946
      • “ The federal commerce power is as broad as the economic needs of the nation” ( N.Am.Co. v. S.E.C)
    • Support of Civil rights Act of 1964
      • Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S.
      • Commerce clause alone supports statute
  • Move to Conservatism
    • - “first principles” and federalism
      • U.S. v. Lopez ( 1995)
        • 1990 statute making possessing gun on school property a federal crime, that if repeated elsewhere would “substantially affect interstate commerce.”
        • Chief Justice Rhenquist argued against police power using Commerce Clause over state or local criminal matters.
    • Only second occasion since 1937 that the Court had ruled that congress had exceeded authority under the commerce clause.
  • Continued restrictions
    • Struck down Violence against Women Act
      • U.S. v. Morrison (2000)
      • Rehnquist – statute had no authority under commerce clause, because it did not involve economic or interstate activity.
    • Both Lopez and Morrison were 5-4 decisions. Court is political and/or ideological.
  • ple·na·ry 1: complete in every respect : absolute , unqualified < plenary power>