Have the Supreme Court decisions regarding the Commerce Clause extended the power of the federal government beyond what the Framers originally intended?

Answer 1

Commerce ClauseArticle I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause, and reads "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The use of vehicles in interstate commerce has been determined by the Supreme Court to fall under this part of the Constitution in the case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The Chief Justice in the majority opinion ruled that navigation and travel fit under this rule.

YesThe Supreme Court has abused the so-called "interstate commerce clause" to the point of meaninglessness. It seems that any and everything the federal government wants to have power over, the Supreme Court becomes a willingly partner in this usurpation by declaring, against all reason and common sense, that some action constitutes "interstate commerce". For example, there is a federal law requiring all toilets sold in the US to be limited to one gallon per flush.

The opinion of some is that the INTENTION of the Constitution was to LIMIT the power of the federal government. This was accomplished by clearly enumerating the powers that the federal government DID have, with the assumption that everything else was off limits. Some thought that the notion that everything else was off limits was not clear enough, so they included in the Bill of Rights the Tenth Amendment, which made it clear.

Yes, the federal government still needs the congress and the courts. The congress to make laws, and the courts to determine whether someone is in violation of them. But both of these institutions (and the president as well) must perform their duties WITHIN THE BOUNDS specified by the Constitution. One of those restrictions is plainly written in the Tenth Amendment. Any power not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States or the People. And the power to regulate how many miles per gallon automobiles must get is NOT delegated to the federal government. Therefore, the federal government has NO power to do so. The power, if it exists at all, is reserved to the States.

Of course, automobiles hadn't been invented yet in 1787 when the Constitution was written. This does not change the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything about automobiles or gasoline. Like it or not, the federal government doesn't have this power. If the PEOPLE think that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating miles per gallon, then a Constitutional Amendment can be initiated to give the government power over this issue. If 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the State legislatures agree, then the Amendment will become part of the Constitution. To date, no such amendment has been proposed.

To many it seems clear that the purpose of the "interstate commerce clause" was to give the federal government the power to set standards for business transactions in cases where no one State government could be said to have authority. At the time, different States had different laws regarding commerce, and buyers and sellers in different States had a hard time determining which State's laws superceded the other's. Even the States themselves had huge disagreements over such issues. So, the framers of the Constitution gave the federal government the power to enact laws that would govern transactions that took place between people in different States. It was supposed that the laws created by the Federal government would be somewhere in between those of the States involved. The framers had no intention of allowing the federal government to make up commerce laws out of whole cloth! Futhermore, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate the terms of the transaction, not the nature of the product itself, nor its price.

I challenge anyone to come up with any transaction, or even any action, that the federal government cannot, under such liberal application of the interstate commerce clause, claim power over. The logic that resulted in the Federal Minimum Wage Law being deemed Constitutional is only slightly less ridiculous.

NoThere are several approaches to Constitutional interpretation. Thus, any interpretation of the Commerce Clause will differ depending on which approach one uses. There is no criterion by which one can say one of these approaches is the correct one. Some are better than others, but there is necessary overlap among them all. The place to begin with any interpretation of the Commerce Clause (or any provision) is with the words of the clause. What does "commerce" mean?

Essentially, one can define the term as the voluntary sale of goods and services, and related activity, intended for the marketplace. This commerce must be "among the several states." That would be between states or in one State that affects another State. One must also understand that the Constitution gives this power to the federal government, and in such a case, the government can exercise that power to its fullest extent. The political structure within which the Clause was placed, and the evolving nature of society and the economy must also be considered. In a national, integrated economy, nearly all commerce would seem to come within the Commerce Clause's ambit. How far the government can extend its Commerce Clause power is in reality a political question, since the Constitutional power is nearly plenary in the economic context. The Supreme Court's decisions are generally reflective of the above view of the Clause's purpose and reach, with some decisions at either end of a continuum of possible interpretations. Thus, the Supreme Court has not extended the government's power under the Commerce Clause beyond the Framer's intent.

Note that the question assumes there is one intent of the Framers and that it can be known. Both are invalid assumptions.