Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-15 08:20:07
Document Index: 133856026

Matched Legal Cases: ['§8', '§8', '§8', '§3', '§8', '§3', '§1', '§8', '§3']

1 All references to The Federalist are to the Jacob E. Cooke 1961 edition.
2 Even to speak of "the Commerce Clause" perhaps obscures the actual scope of that Clause. As an original matter, Congress did not have authority to regulate all commerce; Congress could only "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Although the precise line between interstate/foreign commerce and purely intrastate commerce was hard to draw, the Court attempted to adhere to such a line for the first 150 years of our Nation. See infra, at ___.
3 There are other powers granted to Congress outside of Art. I, §8 that may become wholly superfluous as well due to our distortion of the Commerce Clause. For instance, Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and the territories. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 15 and Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. The grant of comprehensive legislative power over certain areas of the Nation, when read in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution, further confirms that Congress was not ceded plenary authority over the whole Nation.
4 Cf. 3 Debates 40 (E. Pendleton at the Virginia convention) (the proposed Federal Government "does not intermeddle with the local, particular affairs of the states. Can Congress legislate for the state of Virginia? Can [it] make a law altering the form of transferring property, or the rule of descents, in Virginia?"); id., at 553 (J. Marshall at the Virginia convention) (denying that Congress could make "laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state"); The Federalist No. 33, at 206 (A. Hamilton) (denying that Congress could change laws of descent or could pre-empt a land tax); A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, Apr. 2, 1788, in 9 Documentary History 692 (States have sole authority over "rules of property").
5 None of the other Commerce Clause opinions during Chief Justice Marshall's tenure, which concerned the "dormant" Commerce Clause, even suggested that Congress had authority over all matters substantially affecting commerce. See Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (1827); Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245 (1829).
6 It is worth noting that Congress, in the first federal criminal Act, did not establish nationwide prohibitions against murder and the like. See Act of April 30, 1790, ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112. To be sure, Congress outlawed murder, manslaughter, maiming, and larceny, but only when those acts were either committed on United States territory not part of a State or on the high seas. Ibid. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 10 (authorizing Congress to outlaw piracy and felonies on high seas); Art. IV, §3, cl. 2 (plenary authority over United States territory and property). When Congress did enact nationwide criminal laws, it acted pursuant to direct grants of authority found in the Constitution. Compare Act of April 30, 1790, supra, §§1 and 14 (prohibitions against treason and the counterfeiting of U. S. securities) with U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 6 (counterfeiting); Art. III, §3, cl. 2 (treason). Notwithstanding any substantial effects that murder, kidnaping, or gun possession might have had on interstate commerce, Congress understood that it could not establish nationwide prohibitions.
Likewise, there were no laws in the early Congresses that regulated manufacturing and agriculture. Nor was there any statute which purported to regulate activities with "substantial effects" on interstate commerce.
7 To be sure, congressional power pursuant to the Commerce Clause was alternatively described less narrowly or more narrowly during this 150 year period. Compare United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72, 78 (1838) (commerce power "extends to such acts, done on land, which interfere with, obstruct, or prevent the due exercise of the power to regulate [interstate and international] commerce" such as stealing goods from a beached ship) with United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 13 (1895) ("Contracts to buy, sell, or exchange goods to be transported among the several States, the transportation and its instrumentalities . . . may be regulated, but this is because they form part of interstate trade or commerce"). During this period, however, this Court never held that Congress could regulate everything that substantially affects commerce.
8 Although I might be willing to return to the original understanding, I recognize that many believe that it is too late in the day to undertake a fundamental reexamination of the past 60 years. Consideration of stare decisis and reliance interests may convince us that we cannot wipe the slate clean.
9 Nor can the majority's opinion fairly be compared to Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). See post, at 1-7 (Souter, J., dissenting). Unlike Lochner and our more recent "substantive due process" cases, today's decision enforces only the Constitution and not "judicial policy judgments." See post, at 5. Notwithstanding Justice Souter's discussion, " `commercial' character' " is not only a natural but an inevitable "ground of Commerce Clause distinction." See post, at 6 (emphasis added). Our invalidation of the Gun Free School Zones Act therefore falls comfortably within our proper role in reviewing federal legislation to determine if it exceeds congressional authority as defined by the Constitution itself. As John Marshall put it: "If [Congress] were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard . . . . They would declare it void." 3 Debates 553 (before the Virginia ratifying convention); see also The Federalist No. 44, at 305 (James Madison) (asserting that if Congress exercises powers "not warranted by [the Constitution's] true meaning" the judiciary will defend the Constitution); id., No. 78, at 526 (A. Hamilton) (asserting that the "courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments"). Where, as here, there is a case or controversy, there can be no "misstep", post, at 13, in enforcing the Constitution.