Talk:Commerce Clause

message: This article confuses Marine Power under Law of Nations with regulating commerce. Navigation Acts were enacted under the nations Marine Power and not via Power to Regulate Commerce. The Marine Power of Nations is where the power over enrollment and licensing comes from which Marshall in Gibbons ruled was the valid power Congress was exercising under the Coasting Act.
The above is absolutely untrue:
"The words are, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
The subject to be regulated is commerce, and our Constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial [p190]  intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter.
If commerce does not include navigation, the government of the Union has no direct power over that subject, and can make no law prescribing what shall constitute American vessels or requiring that they shall be navigated by American seamen. Yet this power has been exercised from the commencement of the government, has been exercised with the consent of all, and has been understood by all to be a commercial regulation. All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word "commerce" to comprehend navigation. It was so understood, and must have been so understood, when the Constitution was framed. The power over commerce, including navigation, was one of the primary objects for which the people of America adopted their government, and must have been contemplated in forming it. The convention must have used the word in that sense, because all have understood it in that sense, and the attempt to restrict it comes too late."
Clearly Marshall is saying that Navigation of vessels through American waters is something Congress has the power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.Emt1619 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing the Marine Power with Regulating Commerce

message: The Commerce Clause is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 is the Elastic Clause.  Anyone taking the time to check that against the Constitution would notice that. --Lemcconnell wrote without signing 
:No, the Elastic Clause is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. The Commerce Clause is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 as the article states. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 is the Taxing and Spending Clause. Please sign your posts in the future. --Rajah 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering of Article 1, Section 8's clauses

message: :I removed the following paragraph, posted by an anonymous user:
::This period, referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, ushered in a period wherein the Supreme Court largely abdicated its role in limiting the scope of federal power
:The exact phrase doesn't appear at all in google and "consitutional revolution" 1937 only appears once (in an extract from the writings of a newly appointed, by W, conservative justice). I hardly think this qualifies as a widely used, NPOV phrase.
::It is rather silly to be throwing around slang in something that is written for everyone to read. I can only guess that by "W" you could mean President George W. Bush. Considering that the latter wasn't even alive in 1937, that makes it very obscure.72.146.43.188 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of text

message: Apparently, there is an argument that the primary meaning of the word "commerce" in the late eighteenth century -- and the intent of the Commerce Clause -- was not "trade" as today, but more generally "affairs" or "interaction".  See e.g. .  Here is the most relevant paragraph:
:But Amar makes a compelling case on textual and historical grounds that the commerce clause can be read, as many liberals would like, as applying to more than just the economic sphere. He notes that in 1787 the word "commerce" was generally used to refer to all the various forms of interaction in life. (He cites contemporary texts that spoke of the "free and easy commerce of social life" and "our Lord's commerce with his disciples.") More important, he argues, unless "commerce" is read in this expansive fashion, it is not clear how Congress would have the authority to address noneconomic relations with other nations or with Indian tribes, a power that you might reasonably assume the framers wanted Congress to have. Indeed, Amar shows that if you examine the draft language from the constitutional conclave at Philadelphia in 1787, the framers initially granted Congress the power to regulate "affairs" (not just economic affairs) with the Indians. This language became simply "commerce" when the Indian clause was merged into the same provision with "foreign Nations" and "several States" in the final document.
Crust 21:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone comment on this?  Otherwise, I can have a stab at making a mention in the article, but I am not an expert and would prefer to leave this to people who are more knowledgeable on this.  Crust 14:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "Commerce"

message: Under the "significance" heading, the articles states "The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government of the United States has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people."  The 10th Amendment does not say "specifically" delegated powers, and this is contentious in constitutional law.  The phrase is somewhat biased in the article because I don't believe there has ever been a lasting precedent that voted one way or the other.  This goes back to Jefferson/Hamilton and is still debated in the Supreme Court. 131.156.75.125 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Cornince (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 10th amendment.

message: I believe that the significance Part I, II, and III structure, to which I have just added, is somewhat cumbersome.  But I can't think of a better way of handling this right now.  Comments please.   I've added material from United States v Rands and I would like to add material from the history of this issue to present time. There is an article on "navigable servitudes" which consists of just a few sentences, that seems related, but I wouldn't give it this name.   The topic here is between navigable waters, eminent domain, and water law.   Any ideas on how to approach this in terms of organization
Jvonkorff (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: navigable waters

message: This article concerns almost entirely the interstate commerce clause. For example, though Indian tribes generally retain rights not explicitly abrogated in treaties or legislation/regulation when Congress hasn't shown an intent to abrogate them, the Indian commerce clause is much more broad than the interstate commerce clause since the SCOTUS has interpreted the Indian commerce clause to mean that Congress has plenary authority to legislate in Indian affairs. On the other hand, it has limited the interstate commerce clause in US v. Lopez.
Basically, we need to add information about the Indian commerce clause to this article, or create separate articles for the Indian commerce clause, the foreign commerce clause, and the interstate commerce clause. 216.27.182.48 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian commerce clause

message: This article was vandalized on 26 September 2008, resulting in a laughably bizarre error in the first major quote, and NO ONE CAUGHT IT until I saw the error this morning.  This article needs indefinite semi-protection immediately. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs indefinite semi-protection ASAP

message: The article on the Dormant Commerce Clause states that the clause is used to strike down state laws that inflict on federal governments interstate commerce clause, however our section implies that it is used to strike down federal clauses - at least to my reading.
:From the aforementioned article: "The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse — a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute."
--155.247.134.211 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dormant commerce section

message: I think a section of this article should be included on abuse/misuse of the Commerce Clause as a general justification of federal laws otherwise not enumerated.   Mal7798 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are things that I would agree are clear abuse of the Commerce Clause, the definition of those is a controversial subject, and NPV would be nearly impossible while writing about it.    Lolinder (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The clause has allowed the Federal Government to be a monstrous leviathan.  Every human activity is subject to this clause based on rulings, and the government can do anything it wants to. Cameron Nedland (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  However, a consensus could never be reached on what to include under abuse. Lolinder (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: One example I found missing entirely is federal law enforcement's use of the commerce clause to justify virtually any investigation. Example: When former LAPD officer Chris Dorner murdered two people, the FBI's official request to join the case solely cited the commerce clause as authority for their involvement. Chris Dorner wasn't growing weed or selling bootlegs across state lines, he committed murder and stayed locally. This might be justified under the clause, but nothing in this realm of power is even mentioned in this article. J1DW (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse of the commerce clause

message: This article is in serious need of total rewriting by someone fully familiar with the topic - hopefully a professor of constitutional law.  It is disorganized, erratic, does not deal fully with major elements (such as the extent of the states' power to affect interstate commerce), and discusses wholly tangential or irrelevant subjects (such as the nature of Indian tribal government).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.252.154 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A sloppy article needing total rewriting

message: I think this article (and this talk page) needs to make some reference to the so-called "General Welfare" clause, which was pivotal in the 1937 shift in interpretation regarding the constitutional limits of Federal powers.
One very useful source can be found at:
    http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html
It is a scholarly article by John Bugler, about "The General Welfare Clause and how, since 1937, it has been abused to undermine Constitutional government."
Tripodics (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that hilarious nonsense (essentially a dressed-up bizarre blog post) is a scholarly article, well, that's just really, really sad.  You have clearly never read a real scholarly article---I read at least two per week, plus dozens of reported court decisions.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: General Welfare Clause

message: Under "The Rehquist Court", last main paragraph, RE: 10th Amendment "in the last two decades" this phrase needs to be more specific about the dates. The last two decades from today will be different than the last two decades prior to 50 years from now, so who will know which last two decades this means? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  17:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording.  See if that is satisfactory.      Thorncrag   18:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More specific dates

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Commerce Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011145739/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1454.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1454.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701022152/http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ACANews12.pdf to http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ACANews12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Interstate transport. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 9#Interstate transport until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interstate transport" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Summary
The original intent of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution) was to remove/reduce burdens and obstructions to the free-flow of trade in commerce among the States.[1] The original intent is still alive and well today - clearly understood by the Supreme Court in its Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence[2], but the Court selectively ignores the original intent across the rest of the Commerce Clause corpus juris. Congress regularly transgresses the limitations put on its police powers to exercise an unconstitutional power (i.e enacting criminal statutes beyond those of the four powers) in violation of 1. the original intent of the Commerce Clause; 2. principles of federalism and dual sovereignty; and 3. the Tenth Amendment.
The very foundation of our Rule of Law has been subverted and "sunk" into a Serbonian Bog of illegal legislation[3].
Footnotes.
1. Florida v. United States HHS, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1276-77 (ND FL 2011).
2. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers v. Thomas,  139 S. Ct. 2449, 2460 (2019)
3. Milton, John.  1969. Paradise Lost. Four Harvard Classics: The Complete Poems of John Milton. Harvard University Press.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.247.81.94 (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Original Intent of the Commerce Clause