Congress Power Over Commerce example essay topic

Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes". This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word "commerce" is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress' power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden.

In addition, the case United States vs. Lopez is a prime example of Congress' ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce. The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would "extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term...

". (244). It is the government's responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution's composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.

A historical case that first outlined Congress' commerce power was Gibbons vs. Ogden. The courts acted here, in view of commerce, to stretch the interpretation of what was considered to be within its limits. In 1807, steam navigation became productive way of doing things. Robert Fulton was the first to make the voyage from New York to Albany by steamboat. Fulton and his partner, Robert R. Livingston, were granted special operating rights and a "five-year extension to his monopoly, which was not to exceed thirty years". Without receiving a license from Fulton and Livingston, no one was allowed to travel New York waters by steam.

A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to "enjoin" Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce.

When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is inter coursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety.

The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal government has intervened and regulated a state power. Additionally, Article 1, Section 8, which is the end of the enumerated powers clause states that Congress can pass "all necessary laws" and any other powers. This article, "The Necessary and Proper Clause" also known as "The Elastic Clause", gives Congress the power to broaden its powers and keep Federal balance. Supreme Court Justice Marshall presents an argument that supports Congress' regulation over all commerce. He clearly says, "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution".

Where the Constitution states, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes", the word "among" means intermixed with. Commerce may concern more than one state, therefore Congress needs to act "within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states" The Supreme Court held that the power of Congress includes navigation within its limits in every State. Any state activity that attempts to regulate interstate commerce is completely unconstitutional because in dealing with interstate commerce, it can be inferred from the Constitution that the Federal government must regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution did not provide states with the power to regulate commerce between states so it is imperative that the federal government intercedes.

Although the only limit on Congress' power is the Constitution, the States can exercise the same power over their jurisdictions according to The Tenth Amendment. Any power, not granted to the United States, are reserved to the States or the people. In the end, this case proves that Congress is granted the whole power to regulate commerce and whatever affects it. The reversal of the granted injunction demonstrates the power extended to Congress, given by the Framers of the Constitution, acting through the Commerce Clause. The moment a product enters the stream of commerce, it can be regulated.

Commerce is what Congress is to regulate, but what constitutes being within the confines of it? This question has been an ongoing argument that can only be answered depending on the circumstances. For the most part, the court frequently expresses that commerce has a broader meaning than the Constitution has given it. In United States vs. Lopez, the court upheld Congress' delegated power "to regulate activities in and affecting commerce" (web). On March 10, 1992, respondent, a 12th grade student at the time, carried a concealed. 38 caliber handgun and five bullets into Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas.

State charges were brought against him, but later dropped when respondent was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows... is a school zone", 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (q) (1) (A). He was sentenced to six months in jail and two years supervised release. Respondent appealed on the basis that the act exceeds Congress' power to exercise through the Commerce Clause.

A Court of Appeals sided with respondent and reversed the decision to convict the Respondent. Nevertheless, a federal grand jury indicted the Respondent on one count of knowingly possessing a firearm at a school zone and when the Respondent appealed, the District Court denied the motion, thus upholding Congress' power to legislate under the act. The Court concluded that "Section 922 (q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' well-defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the business of elementary, middle and high schools... affects interstate commerce. According to "legislative history" and how it should be, Congress acting under the Commerce Clause is justified and includes Section 922 as not being beyond its' power. The law that is most pertinent here is "the power to regulate Commerce... and among the several states". As with many clauses in the Constitution, each is subject to be expanded in its interpretation.

Essentially, there are three reasons behind why Congress can regulate commerce. First, it is in their enumerated powers to "regulate the use of channels of interstate commerce... Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, although the threat may come only from intrastate activities... Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce... ". unfortunately, it is not always clear whether a circumstance affects interstate commerce. In regards to Section 922 (q), it makes references to crimes and criminal procedures. Chapter 44 specifically prohibits firearms under certain circumstances, which includes in a school zone.

In addition, according to section 3, under 922, the school must have knowledge and grant permission by entering a contract with the individual for the firearm to be on school grounds. Congress declares in Section C of 922 that "firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce" (web). Furthermore, the government can regulate any activity that will lead to a violent crime no matter how little it actually relates to interstate commerce and it can regulate any activity that would affect individual's "economic productivity". Therefore, possession of a firearm can invoke a violent crime to occur and the costs of that violent crime are great. Eventually the cost will spread over the population, thus affecting the "functioning of the national economy. Moreover, an area with violent crimes will be traveled to less by individuals in the country because they will think it is unsafe.

Guns in school will interrupt the educational process because a potential threat is posed. Considering this, less productive citizens will result, effecting the "economic well-being" of the nation. These arguments demonstrate that possession of a firearm does "substantially affect" interstate commerce. One last case that serves as a precedent to justify Congress' power over commerce is National Labor Relations Board vs. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation.

In this case, Congress passed The National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act, which protected the rights of workers and labor organizations; and it reduced disputes that had burdened interstate commerce. Jones & Laughlin Steel was a large corporation. The Board ordered the company to "cease and desist from engaging in certain unfair labor practices". When the company refused to comply, the NRL B petitioned the circuit court of appeals so that they could enforce the order. The court declined to do so, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari, a writ from a higher court to a lower one requesting a transcript of the proceedings of a case for review. In this case, it was decided that regulation of manufacturing by the Government is not unconstitutional, aside from it being reserved to the states by the tenth amendment.

It is held by the court that the power of the government to regulate commerce is anything; and anything that has such a close substantial meaning to interstate commerce, that control is "essential or appropriate" to protect commerce from burdens or obstructions. The Government acts in order to impose a protective power, which it has been granted. "To keep interstate commerce free from burdens and obstructions" is the principle that is the real issue of the case and directly applies to the carrying of a concealed handgun onto school property. It is, indeed, a burden and obstruction to interstate commerce. Once more, a court upholds Congress constitutional authority to protect the rights of its citizens.

It is understood that a counter-argument to accepting the government's arguments in the United States vs. Lopez case will put complete power to regulate commerce in their hands. It gives no limitation to what they can legislate. There is little if any activity that Congress cannot regulate. In addition, there is a question of whether a local activity of carrying a gun will have a significant effect upon interstate commerce. One must consider "not the effect of an individual act (a single instance of a gun possession), but rather the cumulative effect of all similar instances". Furthermore, is Congress interpreting a singular activity affecting interstate commerce "rational?" In response to the dissenting opinions that fail to see how congressional power in this matter prevails, Congress has to act on the assumption of a "unified purpose".

To maintain a stable economy is a responsibility delegated to them by the Constitution and its people. The Government must adhere to these guidelines, which the written law has tied them to. They must act in the best interests of the people whom they are governing. Intervention by the government was required because the mere possession of a firearm on school property has not only short-term effects, but long-term as well. If the long-term effects can be stopped and it better ensures the economic well being of the Nation, then the act should be stopped by Congress. In terms of Congress' unlimited power, it is limited by the Constitution.

Although it is not the issue at hand, the Framers of the Constitution realized that a controversy would arise from this. The declaration of supremacy that the Constitution makes puts limitations on the Government's power. It is the supreme law and any act that is inconsistent with it is null. The respondent's argument that the Act "exceeds the authority of Congress" is a weak argument, which can be disproved by the Constitution, itself.

Congress must be able to exercise stretching its powers in order to insure the safety of the economy. According to law, Congress must "regulate commerce". Some individuals might feel that the Government possesses too much power, but it is necessary for them to have it. Without it, our Government would be weak and subject to failure.

State legislature acts should be unconstitutional if they interfere with interstate commerce. If not, we are giving more power to our states than our Government. Congress' power to legislate control over public schools is constitutional because it is a power delegated to them. Regulation of activities in and affecting commerce does include carrying a handgun to school. The action of bringing it does directly violate the Gun Free School Zone Act, which the Federal Government made a federal offense. Congress analyzes activities in a broad sense so that in the end, they do what is best for every individual.