Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 722

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 598 (2000)

647

Souter, J., dissenting

The objection to reviving traditional state spheres of
action as a consideration in commerce analysis, however,
not only rests on the portent of incoherence, but is com-
pounded by a further defect just as fundamental. The de-
fect, in essence, is the majority’s rejection of the Found-
ers’ considered judgment that politics, not judicial review,
should mediate between state and national interests as the
strength and legislative jurisdiction of the National Gov-
ernment inevitably increased through the expected growth
of the national economy.15 Whereas today’s majority takes
a leaf from the book of the old judicial economists in saying
that the Court should somehow draw the line to keep the
federal relationship in a proper balance, Madison, Wilson,
and Marshall understood the Constitution very differently.
Although Madison had emphasized the conception of a
National Government of discrete powers (a conception that
a number of the ratifying conventions thought was too in-
liberties),16 Madison himself
determinate to protect civil
must have sensed the potential scope of some of the powers
granted (such as the authority to regulate commerce), for he

power even though falling within the limits deﬁned by the substantial
effects test is to deny our constitutional history.

15 That the national economy and the national legislative power expand
in tandem is not a recent discovery. This Court accepted the prospect
well over 100 years ago, noting that the commerce powers “are not con-
ﬁned to the instrumentalities of commerce, or the postal service known or
in use when the Constitution was adopted, but they keep pace with the
progress of the country, and adapt themselves to the new developments
of time and circumstances.” Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union
Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 9 (1878). See also, e. g., Farmers Loan & Trust
Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204, 211–212 (1930) (“Primitive conditions have
passed; business is now transacted on a national scale”).

16 As mentioned in n. 11, supra, many state conventions voted in favor
of the Constitution only after proposing amendments. See 1 Elliot’s De-
bates 322–323 (Massachusetts), 325 (South Carolina), 325–327 (New Hamp-
shire), 327 (Virginia), 327–331 (New York), 331–332 (North Carolina), 334–
337 (Rhode Island).