Commerce clause

825 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Career
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
825
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Commerce clause

  1. 1. Article I, Section 8 Clause 3 Commerce Clause Interstate Commerce Bill Conley
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Interstate Commerce </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business or exchange of commodities (trade), between citizens of different states across state lines. </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Original intent <ul><li>Reaction to Articles of Confederation </li></ul><ul><li>Move from plural to singular meaning of the United States of America </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“…a more perfect Union” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Insure flow of trade is free of encumbrances and restrictions </li></ul><ul><li>Madison in 1928, “power to regulate trade.” </li></ul>
  4. 4. Historical expansion <ul><li>Application of the clause has moved from limiting states’ interference with free exchange, to recent attempts to coerce citizens to buy a product; insurance. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Early Years <ul><li>Federal Plenary Power </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gibbons v. Ogden </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Chief Justice John Marshall </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Commerce includes “every species of commercial intercourse” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Federal government has complete power if legislated in that area </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ogden given exclusive rights by NY through Livingston and Fulton, and Gibbons rights through coasting trade act – Congress 1793 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Unimplemented Power <ul><li>“Selective exclusiveness” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Justice Benjamin R. Curtis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooley v. Board of Warrens of Port of Authority </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If Congress hasn’t legislated, states may, unless there is a need for “uniform national control” </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Increased Congressional Power <ul><li>Interstate Commerce Act 1887 put railroads under federal jurisdiction </li></ul><ul><li>Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)prohibited combinations or monopolies due to restraint of trade between states or foreign powers </li></ul>
  8. 8. Limits on Power <ul><li>U.S. v. E. C. Knight Company (1895) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sherman Act doesn’t apply to sugar monopoly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“…does not begin until goods commence their final movement from state of their origin to their final destination.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“direct effect” – local activity directly affects interstate commerce </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Limits on Power <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Included in Gibbons was the idea that goods produced, transported, and sold were out of federal reach </li></ul>
  10. 10. Viewpoints <ul><li>Some saw these rulings as permission to Congress to increase authority and scope </li></ul><ul><li>Constructionists say these actions as keeping the trade of goods clear of state restraints concerning transportation of interstate commerce. </li></ul><ul><li>Most cases before 1900 found against state regulations that encroached on federal areas </li></ul>
  11. 11. Early Progressives <ul><li>1905 Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ stream of commerce” any local action that becomes part of interstate commerce can be federally regulated </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1914 Justice Charles Evans Hughes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal dominant rule when intrastate and interstate activities are related </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Court’s Expansion <ul><li>1908 move to include labor organizations ( Loewe v. Lawlor) was countered by congress passing Clayton Antitrust Act </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ 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.” </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Progressive Movement <ul><li>Sought to expand power to create extensive control in gambling (lottery tickets), food processing, and prostitution, and labor. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>..closing the channels of interstate commerce to objectionable material </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exception to control child labor – limit federal control over conditions under which goods are produced </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. 1930s <ul><li>Supreme Court reverts back to “production-distribution” and “direct effect” distinctions, which angers FDR and he tries to intimidate the court. </li></ul><ul><li>He succeeds and the Court rejects the narrow interpretations of previous courts. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp (1937) “close and substantial relation …protect…from burdens </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Progressive Era <ul><li>New Deal Programs 1940s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Labor relations, wages, hours, agriculture, business, and navigable streams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. – </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>, “prohibition of such shipment (produced under substandard labor conditions) ….is indubitably a regulation of the commerce.” </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. More Progressivism <ul><li>Justice Frank Murphy - 1946 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The federal commerce power is as broad as the economic needs of the nation” ( N.Am.Co. v. S.E.C) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support of Civil rights Act of 1964 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commerce clause alone supports statute </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Move to Conservatism <ul><li>- “first principles” and federalism </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. v. Lopez ( 1995) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1990 statute making possessing gun on school property a federal crime, that if repeated elsewhere would “substantially affect interstate commerce.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Chief Justice Rhenquist argued against police power using Commerce Clause over state or local criminal matters. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Only second occasion since 1937 that the Court had ruled that congress had exceeded authority under the commerce clause. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Continued restrictions <ul><li>Struck down Violence against Women Act </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. v. Morrison (2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rehnquist – statute had no authority under commerce clause, because it did not involve economic or interstate activity. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Both Lopez and Morrison were 5-4 decisions. Court is political and/or ideological. </li></ul>
  19. 19. ple·na·ry 1: complete in every respect : absolute , unqualified < plenary power>

×