Commerce Clause Question
"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States....
I know it's been interpreted that way since about 1808 (not 1789), but why? Does the text actually support that interpretation and no other? Not according to William Crosskey's detailed study of word usage in the late eighteenth century (Politics and the Constitution in the History of the Unites States).
It's not as if the framers of the Constitution were unable to write, "between Citizens of different States." They used that phrase in defining the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Maybe the Antifederalists were right. Maybe the Constitution did grant the national government plenary power over commerce and much else.
comments powered by Disqus
Paul Moreno - 5/14/2009
I think their principal goal was to prevent the state obstructions and local discriminations that they experienced under the Articles of Confederation. Epstein's article is very good--"The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power," Virginia Law Review 73 (1987), 1387.
David T. Beito - 5/11/2009
The Anti-Feds were right about so many things. The Constitution framers (for all their virtues) were seeking to establish a strong national government. It makes perfect sense to trust Hamilton's interpretation, rather than those who either didn't participate in the process or had political reasons for later opposing the Federalists such as Jefferson and Madison.
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign