Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 693.0

529US3

Unit: $U54

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

618

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Opinion of the Court

truly national and what is truly local. Lopez, 514 U. S., at
In rec-
568 (citing Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U. S., at 30).
ognizing this fact we preserve one of the few principles that
has been consistent since the Clause was adopted. The reg-
ulation and punishment of intrastate violence that is not di-
rected at the instrumentalities, channels, or goods involved
in interstate commerce has always been the province of the
States. See, e. g., Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 426, 428
(1821) (Marshall, C. J.) (stating that Congress “has no general
right to punish murder committed within any of the States,”
and that it is “clear . . . that congress cannot punish felonies
generally”).
Indeed, we can think of no better example of
the police power, which the Founders denied the National
Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression
of violent crime and vindication of its victims.8 See, e. g.,
Lopez, 514 U. S., at 566 (“The Constitution . . . withhold[s]
from Congress a plenary police power”); id., at 584–585
(Thomas, J., concurring) (“[W]e always have rejected read-

8 Justice Souter disputes our assertion that the Constitution reserves
the general police power to the States, noting that the Founders failed
to adopt several proposals for additional guarantees against federal en-
croachment on state authority. See post, at 645–646, and n. 14. This
argument is belied by the entire structure of the Constitution. With its
careful enumeration of federal powers and explicit statement that all pow-
ers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved, the Constitution
cannot realistically be interpreted as granting the Federal Government an
unlimited license to regulate. See, e. g., New York v. United States, 505
U. S. 144, 156–157 (1992). And, as discussed above, the Constitution’s sep-
aration of federal power and the creation of the Judicial Branch indicate
that disputes regarding the extent of congressional power are largely sub-
ject to judicial review. See n. 7, supra. Moreover, the principle that
“ ‘[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers,’ ”
while reserving a generalized police power to the States, is deeply in-
grained in our constitutional history. New York, supra, at 155 (quoting
Gregory v. Ashcroft, supra, at 457); see also Lopez, 514 U. S., at 584–599
(Thomas, J., concurring) (discussing the history of the debates surrounding
the adoption of the Commerce Clause and our subsequent interpretation
of the Clause); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968).