CRS Annotated Constitution
|Article I -- Table of Contents||Prev | Next|
Regulate.—“We are now arrived at the inquiry—” continued the Chief Justice, “What is this power? It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution . . . If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of congress, though lim[p.165]ited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is vested in congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States.”607
Of course, the power to regulate commerce is the power to prescribe conditions and rules for the carrying–on of commercial transactions, the keeping–free of channels of commerce, the regulating of prices and terms of sale. Even if the clause granted only this power, the scope would be wide, but it extends to include many more purposes than these. “Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin. In doing this, it is merely exercising the police power, for the benefit of the public, within the field of interstate commerce.”608 Thus, in upholding a federal statute prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made with child labor, not because the goods were intrinsically harmful but in order to extirpate child labor, the Court said: “It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of the states.”609
The power has been exercised to enforce majority conceptions of morality,610 to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations,611 and to protect the public against evils both natural and contrived by people.612 The power to regulate interstate commerce is, therefore, rightly regarded as the most potent grant of authority in Sec. 8.
Necessary and Proper Clause.—All grants of power to Congress in Sec. 8, as elsewhere, must be read in conjunction with the final clause, cl. 18, of Sec. 8, which authorizes Congress “[t]o make all[p.166]Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers.”613 It will be recalled that Chief Justice Marshall alluded to the power thus enhanced by this clause when he said that the regulatory power did not extend “to those internal concerns [of a state] . . . with which it is not necessary to interfere, for thepurpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.”614 There are numerous cases permitting Congress to reach “purely” intrastate activities on the theory, combined with the previously mentioned emphasis on the cumulative effect of minor transactions, that it is necessary to regulate them in order that the regulation of interstate activities might be fully effectuated.615
Federalism Limits on Exercise of Commerce Power.—As is recounted below, prior to reconsideration of the federal commerce power in the 1930s, the Court in effect followed a doctrine of “dual federalism,” under which Congress’ power to regulate much activity depended on whether it had a “direct” rather than an “indirect” effect on interstate commerce.616 When the restrictive interpretation was swept away during and after the New Deal, the question of federalism limits respecting congressional regulation of private activities became moot. However, the States did in a number of instances engage in commercial activities that would be regulated by federal legislation if the enterprise were privately owned; the Court easily sustained application of federal law to these state proprietary activities.617 However, as Congress began to extend regulation to state governmental activities, the judicial response was inconsistent and wavering.618 While the Court may shift again to constrain federal power on federalism grounds, at the present time[p.167]the rule is that Congress lacks authority under the commerce clause to regulate the States as States in some circumstances, when the federal statutory provisions reach only the States and do not bring the States under laws of general applicability.619
That Congress’ protective power over interstate commerce reaches all kinds of obstructions and impediments was made clear in United States v. Ferger.620 The defendants had been indicted for issuing a false bill of lading to cover a fictitious shipment in interstate commerce. Before the Court they argued that inasmuch as there could be no commerce in a fraudulent bill of lading, Congress had no power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over them. Said Chief Justice White: “But this mistakenly assumes that the power of Congress is to be necessarily tested by the intrinsic existence of commerce in the particular subject dealt with, instead of by the relation of that subject to commerce and its effect upon it. We say mistakenly assumes, because we think it clear that if the proposition were sustained it would destroy the power of Congress to regulate, as obviously that power, if it is to exist, must include the authority to deal with obstructions to interstate commerce . . . and with a host of other acts which, because of their relation to and influence upon interstate commerce, come within the power of Congress to regulate, although they are not interstate commerce in and of themselves.”621 Much of Congress’ criminal legislation is based simply on the crossing of a state line as creating federal jurisdiction.622
Supplement: [P. 167, add to n.619, immediately after New York v. United States:]
See also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) .
|Article I -- Table of Contents||Prev | Next|