Posted on 10/20/2021 4:52:45 AM PDT by EBH
Overview The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States.
"Dormant" Commerce Clause The “Dormant Commerce Clause" refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. In West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994), the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts state tax on milk products, as the tax impeded interstate commercial activity by discriminating against non-Massachusetts.
The Meaning Of "Commerce" Origin The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of controversy, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the Framers of the Constitution intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. Moreover, what constitutes "interstate" commercial activity has also been subject to consistent debate.
Broad Interpretation In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), the Supreme Court held that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided that the activity is part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. In Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), the Supreme Court held that Congress had the authority to regulate local commerce, as long as that activity could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services.
From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an unequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning that even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme.
Under this interpretation, California's law is interfering with the movement of goods and services. Congress or the President or other States need to step up in signal the violation of the Commerce Clause.
In the 1990s, the Rehnquist Court treated these New Deal cases as the high water mark of congressional power. In the cases of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000), the Court confined this regulatory authority to intrastate economic activity. In addition, in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justice Scalia maintained that, under Lopez, "Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce." Interpretation Commerce Clause
What you neglect to state is that the Federal Government granted California the ability to set pollution regulations that were stricter than the Federal standard, and that the Federal Government would enforce those tougher standards.
Possibly, but the Xiden stole-ministration and it’s inJustice department won’t do a thing.
the deep state loves CA. they can do no wrong.
True. but those pollution standards are not interfering with commerce to the rest of the nation and if the bottleneck is not resolved eventually affecting the rest of the world.
They may not, but the States can start litigation against California. Sitting back and surrendering isn’t an option. It is time to start putting a few legal shots across the bow of this.
It may be worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas' minority opinion in Gonzalez stated that "if Congress can regulate [the noncommercial growing of marijuana for personal use] under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Justice Thomas got it right. And Wickard needs to be reversed.
L
The Article 8 commerce clause has to be considered in the light of the immediately following Article 9 slave clause.
Article 8 gave the Congress the power over the slave trade, but not over plantation labor management.
bump
Congress can’t hand over any of its legislative power to a state or to a guy with a moustache or beard who is fond of ranting.
The legislative power of Congress is its alone to exercise.
California could of course outlaw high-particle emitting trucks on any of the roads it owns the right of way on.
But it seems to me, that the port bottleneck is affecting commerce and the interfering regulation in California is one of the direct causes. It isn’t just affecting local states, but also impacting global trade and commerce
We have ports in Florida.
Are those ports having the same issue! If not, point made the California law is interfering with commerce.
They should step in, by they won’t. The Dems want you to feel pain and to hurt you economically so that you will beg for socialism.
I agree - I posted the quote simply because it highlights Justice Thomas' potentially more conservative view of the commerce clause, should any case related to California's 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' environmental laws & regulations make its way to the high court...
Effff lawyer bullcrud. There has to come a time and it’s long past due.
Not in violation per se, but it’s actions can be used to justify the feds nullifying those actions.
We’d need a non-RINO repub to do that though. Don’t expect any action soon.
Also take into account their basically outlawing Independent Contractors/truckers too. That got caught up in the uber/lyft driver rules
They are!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.