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.
Daaren,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this, I am left with an interesting question about the rights of states to make laws at all. You mention that if different states were allowed to make different laws on certain issues, it would not bode well for the country as a whole, so the federal government is justified in taking over the making of those laws. I believe that this could be said about a majority of the issues that inspire laws, as otherwise there would be the point of making a law about the issue. This would seem to suggest that the federal government should simply take over the lawmaking for all issues to make things better for the country, and the only reason that states can still handle some things is because either they are such small issues they don't affect much, or because the states many years ago were upset at not having all of the power under the new government. I would be very interested to find out if there were any further information on this topic.
- Brett Kissane
Dareen,
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a really good point about the 10th Amendment, that while it gives States power that is not provided in the Constitution that does not mean they cannot make laws that coincide with national laws. I have to say, I never really applied that thinking to the 10th Amendment. To me, I am a huge supporter of the 10th Amendment as it restricts the national government from trying to overstep their powers into the States issues. But as you said that does not mean the States cannot laws that go along with the national laws. As you discussed the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause really make it hard for the States, but the idea that States can make laws that coincide really helps them as long as they do not overstep the national laws. Personally I feel the two clauses mentioned above have been expanded a bit further than they were intended, but again great point about coinciding laws!
- Jonathan Hanje