COMMERCE CLAUSE Flashcards
COMMERCE CLAUSE
Article…
Section…
Clause…
Article I
Section 8
Clause 3
Congress shall have the power to regulate….
Congress has the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes”
……its all about regulation kids……
Definition of Commerce
More than just buying and selling goods or commodities; it includes interactions of a commercial nature at all phases in business (manufacturing to the sale of a product)
The three categories of commerce
Congress has the power to regulate
- Channels of ISC
- Instrumentalities of ISC
- Activities (substantially) effecting ISC
How do the following amplify Congress Power under CC?
- Necessary & Proper Clause
- Aggregation Principle (Wickard v. Filburn)
- Rational Basis Review
- Necessary & Proper Clause
- Aggregation Principle (Wickard v. Filburn)
Court allows the aggregation of all factors of the same economic activity to determine if there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce (Class of activity is defined by congress in the statute, i.e., Gonzales)
• Rational Basis Review (Deference to Congress concerning whether economic activities effect interstate commerce)
Limits on Commerce Clause
- Economic Activity vs. Noneconomic Activity: • Activity must be economic and have a substantial economic effect (i.e., Lopez)
- Substantial Effect (Not just an effect, but can be achieved through aggregation)
- 10th Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US:
Motel arguing that regulating motel’s does not fall within the commerce clause and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress and also does not violate Civil Rights Act.
- Court holds that this motel has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce: ppl travel state to state constantly and stay in motels when doing so; not allowing black ppl to stay in motel deters their ability to travel inter-state which creates a negative effect on interstate commerce.
- Takeaway: Congress allowed to further non-commercial motives, as long as the regulated activity does effect interstate commerce (such as civil rights).
Court held interstate travel to be a key component of interstate commerce, the moral social motive is irrelevant because of the connection to interstate commerce
Wickard
(Aggregation Principle in growing personal supply of wheat)
Court determines if the whole group sought to be regulated has an interstate effect, if so any individual or entity within that class can be regulated
- Requires a rational basis for concluding there is an aggregate effect
- Where the class of activities has been regulated, the court will not pluck an individual out of the class
Katzenbach v. McClung
(Ollie’s BBQ served food that traveled through interstate commerce)
Court applies the aggregation principle to the effect of discrimination which results in less spending and fewer customers
Hodel v. Indiana
Regulation of strip mining and required reclamation of strip-mining land upheld
Legislation can only be invalidated if there no rational basis for the congressional finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce and that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends
- Effect of strip-mining on commerce passes muster under rational basis review
- Take Away – Rational Basis Review is applied to commerce clause cases
- Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
- Wickard
- Hodel v. Indiana
Perez
What did these cases do?
Broadened Federal Commerce Power Cases (1937-1990)
- Court looks at the regulated activity and not at Congress’s motive in passing the statute - Perez
- Court considers the aggregated effect the activity has on interstate commerce, not the isolated activity of one person
- Court gives Congress a lot of deference in determining there is a rational basis for concluding effect on interstate commerce. Therefore, during this time, pretty much anything that was labeled as rationally effecting interstate commerce was under Congress’s control (very broad power).
• United States v. Lopez (No guns near schools)
Court invalidated gun restriction criminalizing gun possession near schools or at school
Change in the Commerce Clause Jurisprudence
• Effect → Substantial Effect
• Activity must be economic and have an economic effect
• Unclear if the majority is using Rational Basis Review (Dissent does)
• United States v. Morrison
(Violence Against Women Act, Rape victim not helped by her school)
What did court say about Congress’s regultion of noneconomic violent criminal conduct?
Court rejected congress’s regulation of noneconomic violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce (Affirms substantial effect principle)
• Cannot satisfy category #3 of the areas Congress may regulate through the Commerce Clause power
US v. Morrison
What did the court say about the aggregation principle?
Court modifies aggregation principle: only justified when the aggregate effect is an economic one in nature and creates an economic effect on interstate commerce.
Unclear if rational basis review was applied
• Court uses a slippery slope argument: But-for causal connection would allow the regulation of anything just by mustering statistics
Which cases are seen as narrowing/Limiting Commerce Clause Power ?
(1990-Today)
- United States v. Lopez (No guns near schools)
- United States v. Morrison (Violence Against Women Act, Rape victim not helped by her school)
- Gonzales v. Raich (Cali Medical Marijuana versus the DEA’s Controlled Substance Act)
What two, Motha fuckin, Commerce Clause Cases deal with a
Slippery Slope?
Morrison & Lopez
