However whatever small basis you have to make this dormant commerce clause argument. It is worthy of noting that in none of these case was law applied to say the commerce power is strictly a negative restraint to the states nothing more. Seems to me your entire argument is simply that James Madison once referred to it in the past tense as he was talking about the basis for its passage.
No, I rather think my point was that there was indeed a "backing" for making the argument that it's what was intended, as a direct counter to your contention there was none "whatsoever."
I think the guy who wrote it describing exactly what he had in mind while writing it is a pretty darn good "backing" as to its intent. Don't you?
you are unlearned in constitutional history. tell us what backs the current interpretation-and don't tell me its current law, I want an honest defense of the FDR court's massive activism
No, I rather think my point was that there was indeed a "backing" for making the argument that it's what was intended, as a direct counter to your contention there was none "whatsoever."
I think the guy who wrote it describing exactly what he had in mind while writing it is a pretty darn good "backing" as to its intent. Don't you?
Fair enough but let me beg the question what is this power in your mind is it simply a negative restriction on the states or is it a little more?
I don't think thats necessarily true I would argue that while yes federal law is supreme in the constitution our system of federalism allows enough flexibility to allow states to regulate within their domain so long as their regulations don't seek to nullify or displace federal law.
It must be true, else states would be able to put up their own tariffs against imports and "regulate" along those lines as well.
There is no question that Congress has supreme power over commerce both nationally and internationally obviously the states could not regulate those things you mention, but the state does have authority to regulate intrastate commerce to the degree that it does not interfere with valid congressional regulations.
Read an article about this the other day. Just seeing some other opinions.
that's idiotic. It was designed to prevent a state such as ohio from interfering with goods being sent from say Pittsburgh to Saint Louis by imposing tariffs on those goods as they came down the Ohio river
The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?