Does the Commerce Clause Apply Only to Commerce? [No. 86]

Рет қаралды 70,643

Күн бұрын

What is considered “commerce” under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Professor Steven Calabresi discusses the gradual development of the legal understanding of commerce, as the Commerce Clause was interpreted in landmark Supreme Court cases. The Court concluded that Congress can regulate the movements of both property and people across international borders and state lines.
Professor Steven G. Calabresi is the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. He is Chairman of the Federalist Society's Board of Directors.
#law #commerce #commerceclause #federalism #scotus #supremecourt #property
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist: • Constitutional Law [Co...

Пікірлер: 14

@gopher7691 10 ай бұрын

Could someone please define commerce

@Schlabbeflicker 9 ай бұрын

A state line crossing invoking the commerce clause would give feds the unlimited right to conduct stops and searches when private citizens cross state borders. They could even unilaterally prohibit all unauthorized interstate travel and institute an "internal passport" if they so chose.

@gopher7691 10 ай бұрын

Does the commerce clause give congress the power to have a minimum wage law? I don’t think so. What you pay a worker isn’t commerce

@CandyGramForMongo_ 3 жыл бұрын

Um, you didn’t answer the question posed in the title. Is there a part two?

@AlnTamer 3 жыл бұрын

They indeed answer the question that is posed. Yes, the Commerce Clause only applies to commerce, however, it is described that commerce is a broad term. Commerce in the eyes of the Supreme Court is any transfer of goods or people across state boundaries. The conclusion being that the Commerce Clause does only apply to commerce, but commerce is a generalized term that can be interpreted by the Supreme Court as it may be "Necessary and Proper" (Necessary and Proper Clause). Therefore, the Supreme Court can essentially apply the Commerce Clause to everything (however, the Federalist Society does not state their opinion on whether or not they agree with the Supreme Court's jurisdiction of Commerce Clause power).

@CandyGramForMongo_ 3 жыл бұрын

Circular reasoning. Commerce Clause applies to commerce. There is nothing useful in that statement. What is commerce? That is the answer I was looking for. Hint: “could be commerce” and “potential commerce” are not commerce, regardless of SCOTUS.

@jahnkejustin429 2 жыл бұрын

@@CandyGramForMongo_ the Commerce Clause under the U.S. Constitution applies only to commerce. The Commerce Clause under Supreme Court precedent applies to just about anything. You're welcome.

@ronniedelahoussayechauvin6717 Жыл бұрын

Crimes & Corruption

@rexd_kin6850 Жыл бұрын

@@CandyGramForMongo_ Commerce is trade, which is not separated in the clause. The same meaning of commerce when used internationally (trade deals with foreign nations) should be applied when used in interstate commerce. Which is trade between States, not trade between people.

@ronniedelahoussayechauvin6717 Жыл бұрын

Crimes & Corruption💯

@soloboshek 3 ай бұрын

This guy couldn't be more incorrect. Never trust someone educated by government schools on the topic of government power. 1) He first references a court case. The courts do not have the ability to define, or in this case, redefine definitions within the constitution. Thats no different than letting a police officer define his own power. Thats a no-go. 2) He didn't point out the reason the founders put this in the constitution. Original intent. Before the constitution was ratified the states had the ability to tax each others goods traveling across their borders to other states, which caused a lot of issues among the states. This was to ensure Georgia could ship goods to New York and not be charged an unfair tax for travelling through other states along the way. If you read the clause, its clear that this is for large soverign entities, not individuals. 3) He mentions "strong implication." The Constitution was never meant to be read and based on implied intents, but instead explicit intents. If the power is not explicitily declared in the constitution, then it is reserved to the states and the people. Whenever someone says its assumed or applied in the constitution, then it should be thrown out. 4) All current commerce laws were changed and altered to what they are day because of court cases. Again, courts to not define the law. They are not legislators. There is a reason why its refered to as an opinion when the Supreme Courts make a ruling... Its their opinion and has no legal affect. Think I'm wrong? Please use the Constitution or quotes from founders to prove me wrong.