Source: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:49:48+00:00

Document:
Subsequently, powers have been repeatedly ascribed to the National Government by the Court on grounds that ill accord with the doctrine of enumerated powers: the power to legislate in effectuation of the ''rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined'' by the Constitution; 44 the power to impart to the paper cur rency of the Government the quality of legal tender in the payment of debts; 45 the power to acquire territory by discovery; 46 the power to legislate for the Indian tribes wherever situated in the United States; 47 the power to exclude and deport aliens; 48 and to require that those who are admitted be registered and fingerprinted; 49 and finally the complete powers of sovereignty, both those of war and peace, in the conduct of foreign relations. Thus, in United States v. Curtiss- Wright Corp., 50 decided in 1936, Justice Sutherland asserted the dichotomy of domestic and foreign powers, with the former limited under the enumerated powers doctrine and the latter virtually free of any such restraint. That doctrine has been the source of much scholarly and judicial controversy, but, although limited, it has not been repudiated.
Yet, for the most part, these holdings do not, as Justice Sutherland suggested, directly affect ''the internal affairs'' of the nation; they touch principally its peripheral relations, as it were. The most serious inroads on the doctrine of enumerated powers are, in fact, those which have taken place under cover of the doctrine--the vast expansion in recent years of national legislative power in the regulation of commerce among the States and in the expenditure of the national revenues. Verbally, at least, Marshall laid the ground for these developments in some of the phraseology above quoted from his opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.
[Footnote 34] 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 405 (1819).
[Footnote 35] Infra, pp. 445-452.
[Footnote 36] 206 U.S. 46, 82 (1907).
[Footnote 37] 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.), 407.
[Footnote 40] 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 1256. See also id., 1286 and 1330.
[Footnote 41] 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828).
[Footnote 44] Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 616 , 618-619 (1842).
[Footnote 45] Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 449 -450 (1884). See also Justice Bradley's concurring opinion in Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 565 (1871).
[Footnote 46] United States v. Jones, 109 U.S. 513 (1883).
[Footnote 47] United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
[Footnote 48] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893).
[Footnote 49] Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
[Footnote 50] 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.