commerce-clause

Commerce Clause – Eileen Li

Video

Written Component

Context

In 1781, five years after the colonies became free from British rule, the Articles of Confederation were implemented. This document was an agreement between the 13 states that attempted to establish the functions of the national government. The Articles allowed each state to have power over their own trade. They worked independently and competitively against each other, and even established trade barriers. Congress was prohibited from regulating any commerce, so the rising inflation rates could not be controlled, and America’s economy grew weak. In response to these economic problems, a convention was held in 1789. 

 

Common interpretation

The Commerce Clause was formed here, which gave Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This clause is commonly interpreted as giving Congress power to regulate international and interstate commerce, and trade with Indian Tribes, as well as prohibit states from interfering with Congress’ decisions. 

 

Matters of Debate

However, the undefined meanings of the words “to regulate”, “commerce” and “among the several States” make this clause open to interpretation. For example, in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the word “commerce” was argued to include people, not just goods. Thomas Gibbons, given permission by the federal government to operate steamboats between New York City and the New Jersey coast, sued Aaron Ogden, who was backed up by the State of New York to do the same, after Gibbons was denied access to these waterways. In the end, the Court ruled in Gibbon’s favor. The argument was that the definition of “commerce” included the people carried in steamboats, so steamboats would be considered as commerce, and the powers of Congress from the Commerce Clause could be applied. The reasoning of Chief Justice Marshall was that “commerce” was not only buying and selling, but also intercourse and thus navigation. 

Another matter of debate was introduced in United States v. Darby, where the meanings of “to regulate” and “among the several States” were expanded. The FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) was passed in 1938, and set minimum wages, maximum hours, etc. Darby, a lumber manufacturer, was arrested after shipping lumber out of state while violating the FLSA. In this case, the Court reaffirmed this Act to be constitutional, which gave Congress the power to prohibit manufacturing goods inside states with the FLSA. Another reason why Congress was given this power was because intrastate commerce would affect interstate commerce, which the government was already in charge of by the Commerce Clause. Previously, the common interpretations of “to regulate” and “among the several States” led to Congress regulating commerce between two or more states. However, these meanings were expanded in the case of United States v. Darby, giving Congress the power to regulate interstate and now intrastate commerce.

 

Significance

The concepts of the Commerce Clause connect to some ideas of early modern enlightenment philosophers such as Rousseau, as they both emphasized the importance of a strong central government. Personally, I would not change this clause because I think this idea is extremely important. If Congress wasn’t in charge of states’ trade, the free market wouldn’t exist, and America’s economy would worsen.

Commerce Clause and Declare War Clause – Annika Maduraperuma

Video

Written Component

The Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution created a weak federal government, giving too much autonomy and power to the states, upsetting the power balances. The Constitution sought to fix this, and in Article 1, the legislative branch is created, balancing and regulating state and federal power. Section 8, often called “the enumerated powers of congress” is thought of as a direct response to the problems of the Articles of Confederation.

The Commerce clause, Clause 3 of Article 1, Section 8, is commonly understood to display the power Congress has to regulate commerce and trade internally, externally, and with Native American tribes. This clause stops states from interfering or obstructing interstate commerce. The reach of the commerce clause has become increasingly expansive over time. In Gibbons v Ogden (1824), Chief Justice Marshall expanded the definition of commerce to intercourse, the dealings and discussions between groups or individuals at large. As time went on, other Supreme Court cases slowly defined that anything that ends in profit, and requires interstate movement in that process, can be federally regulated. After United States v. Darby (1941), Congress’ regulation was redefined to encompass any intrastate activities that affect interstate commerce. In Katzenbach v McClung (1964), the Court’s unanimous decision enforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and set the precedent that segregation interfered with interstate commerce because of its effect on transportation and business. This stopped McClung from refusing to serve African Americans and gave Congress the power to stop segregation.

The Declare War Clause, Clause 11 of Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the sole power to declare war and commence hostilities. At the time of creation, it was meant to be a check on the President’s power. But, in the modern day, it is commonly misunderstood that war is declared by the President, as the powers of the Declare War clause and the President’s position as commander in chief of the armed forces blur. After the Gulf of Tonkin incident, President Johnson asked for and received a resolution from Congress allowing him to ensure international and Southeast Asian peace and US safety and prevent further aggression through any necessary means. This resolution served as grounds for the rest of the military action President Johnson and President Nixon oversaw during the Vietnam war, though a formal declaration of war was never decreed (1). Tension specifically rose between Congress and the President when Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia without congressional consent or oversight in 1970 (2). This led to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which forced the President to report any use of armed forces to Congress within 48 hours, after which if Congress failed to authorize use of hostilities in the next 60 days, the President must terminate any action. While meant to limit executive power, it implicitly gives them a period of guaranteed action, continuing the battle over military checks and balances.

  1. National Archives, “Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964),” National Archives, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/tonkin-gulf-resolution.

  2. Richard Nixon Presidential Library, “War Powers Resolution of 1973,” Richard Nixon Presidential Library, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973#:~:text=Congress%20passed%20the%20War%20Powers,from%20Vietnam%20in%20early%201973.