The Commerce Clause-Federalist No. 51
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In looking at the Federalist No. 51 and Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution, we recognize immediately that there is a duality in American government. This duality encompasses the dilemma of states’ rights versus federal rights of the national government. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is also known as the “commerce clause”, a clause which permits Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes” (Commerce 1). Yet, the Constitution is constantly open for interpretation by whichever group of judges presides over the nation’s highest court. In 1824 the Supreme Court found in Gibbons v. Ogden that a broad definition of interstate commerce was intended by the framers of the Constitution. Yet, this decision did allow for the federal government to exercise control over state commerce if the state was guilty of violating the dormant character of the Commerce Clause, “Where state legislation resembles regulation of interstate commerce, or is discriminatory in effect, the State may have violated the dormant nature of the Commerce Clause which by its mere presence in the Constitution grants exclusive power over regulation to Congress” (Commerce 1). Ever since this time the federal government has been at odds with itself and with the states regarding the regulation of interstate commerce.During the years before Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Court controlle
. . .
ion because it adds to the complexity of the relationship between state governments and the federal government, “The powers not delegated to the Unites State buy the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (Ciglar and Loomis A-13). However, one of the problems with United States v. Lopez is that the decision greatly expanded the scope and definition of what equates to interstate commerce. In a way, the decision makes it clear that just about everything which affects the economy can be considered interstate commerce. Lopez also gave to the nation the standard test that must be met for any law that invokes the Commerce Clause or power granted to the federal government. For the decision defined that interstate commerce should be defined as “any activity which held a substantial relation to interstate commerce, or which affected the national economy, or which in larger quantities would become interstate commerce” (Commerce 2). One can see that this final definition includes just about anything because the nation of commerce and national markets operates on the exchange of goods from having created surplus (i.e., large quantities of production).
Chief Justice
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Commerce Clause, Supreme Court, Secretary Energy, Brady Bill, Article Section, United Lopez, interstate commerce, Wickard Filburn, Steel Corp, United Darby, Tenth Amendment, commerce clause, federal government, supreme court, york united, court found, dual federalism, tenth amendment, relation interstate commerce, regulation interstate, congress regulate, regulation interstate commerce, supreme court found, united lopez decision, equates interstate commerce,
Approximate Word count = 1899
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
