On Interstate Commerce

This past Wednesday in class, we discussed Interstate Commerce. Specifically, it was noted that since Congress had the power to govern Interstate Commerce, then States could not make laws concerning that Commerce without good reason. This fits nicely in with my subject of the Tenth Amendment and State rights.

The best place to go when discussing this subject is the source: The Constitution. Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of this documents states that Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce... among the several States.” Thus, this power is not reserved to the States via Amendment 10 because it has been “delegated to the United States by the Constitution.”

However, in class we also discussed that States could make laws concerning Interstate Commerce if they had good reason for it. What constitutes 'discriminating commerce on its face' is up to the courts and debate.

Initially, I felt like this should be considered unconstitutional because the States could be creating laws that usurp Congressional power concerning interstate trade. Looking at the issue more carefully, though, changed my mind. The tenth amendment gives States power that haven't been given to the Federal government. However, it does not say that states cannot make laws that coincide with powers that are given to the Federal government as well.

The Constitution does allow the Federal government to make laws that are “necessary and proper” to carrying out the duties given to it. That is why 'state statutes discriminating commerce' can be tried in the Supreme Court and declared incorrect or unconstitutional.

Of course, being legal and Constitutional and being liked are two separate things. I believe the power of the government to regulate Interstate Commerce is a positive for the country. If the several states presented different laws or ideals about commerce between each other, chaos may ensue, or at least confusion and disarray. Interstate Commerce thus provides a sense of national unity that is so important to a nation and its economy. If this commerce was not regulated by the national government, each state could make its own laws that say which goods are or are not allowed into its borders or what kind of tariffs are to be placed on goods from certain states. If this happened, it would probably force states into some sense of self-reliance, which does not help the nation's financial health.  

State of Missouri v. Holland: On State Rights and Flappy Birds.

Missouri argued that the Federal Government infringed on the rights of the state given to the state by the Tenth Amendment by forming a treaty with Canada which said a certain species of migratory bird was to be protected.

The ruling was that the Constitution gave the Federal Government the ability to make treaties with other countries. These then become the “supreme law of the land” and as such must be followed (1). The federal government was just in making this treaty because the bird needed to be protected for the sake for the sake of the environment.

Additionally, the Court decided that because the birds were migratory and did not reside in any one state, they could not be considered a state's property; this being, it must be the “officers of the United States” who enforce the treaty (2). Thus, the federal government was right in making such a treaty and did not infringe on the rights of the state.

Personally, I feel like the Supreme Court decided in the right concerning the treaty of the United States with Canada. Upon first reading of the court case summary, I felt that the decision was unfair to states in general, especially since I thought that the Court wasn't allowing the State of Missouri to regulate the birds because the birds only go through the state and do not reside in it. However, this is not the case. The Court said “but for the treaty, the State would be free to regulate this subject itself” (3). Thus, if the treaty had not been made by the Federal Government, it would be up to the state if it wanted to protect the birds or not.

This court case relates to the Tenth Amendment because concerns an example of a right given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. This is the right to make Treaties (U.S. Constitution, art. 2, sec. 2). According to the Tenth Amendment, rights not given to the Federal Government belong to the states. However, since the Constitution does give this right to the Federal Government, states must follow the treaties made.  

Bibliography:

1. "State of Missouri v. Holland," Supreme Court opinion by Justice Holmes, hosted by Cornell University Law School. Website not dated, accessed January 31-February 6, 2013, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/252/416

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.