The Purpose of the Commerce Clause
The initial purpose of writing and enacting the Commerce Clause was to eliminate hostile interstate commerce legislation. To protect the rights of local state merchants, individual states enacted legislation that discriminated against trading outsiders. The clause's meaning in terms of the exercise of state powers over trade law has been varied. Although some interpret the provision to grant the Congress exclusive commerce regulation authority, some interpret it to give the states and the Congress concurrent commerce regulation power. Not only does the clause affect interstate commerce, but it also covers foreign commerce, the Indian tribes’ commerce, and intrastate commerce that concerns more than one state.
The Challenge of Regulating E-commerce
The rapid growth of e-commerce presented a challenge in regulation due to lack of the appropriate statutes. The efforts by the government to regulate e-commerce through the modernization of the existing laws were unconstitutional and futile. The attempts by state governments in tax collection and protection of internal state interests in e-commerce have resulted in the violation of the Commerce Clause. Several states have infringed the privacy of out-of-state e-commerce merchants by demanding for private documentation. According to Renee Giachino, the internet was described by a Federal District Court judge, in the 1997 lawsuit American Library Ass’n v. Pataki, as a national preserve that should not be exposed to inconsistent state regulation.
Regulating Commerce with Foreign Nations
Commerce with foreign nations was placed under the federal regulation to safeguard the international relations and interests. The Congress has the exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce because the unified federal government acts on behalf of its people in international relations and trade. The federal regulation of foreign commerce results in the uniformity in taxation. The states are limited in power to engage international entities in agreements, treaties, or tariffs. The foreign nations’ competitors are protected from unfair commerce taxation that would be imposed on states’ outsiders.
Expansion of the Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause was initially interpreted to affect interstate commerce only. However, intrastate commerce was included in the interpretation in 1824 by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court, in the case Gibbons v. Ogden, ruled that the federal government regulation was necessary for intrastate commerce that significantly affects more than one state. Commerce was defined by federal courts’ judges as the activities that involve buying and selling. Economic activities that do not fall under the definition of commerce, such as mining, manufacturing, and production, were regulated by the states because of lack of coverage by the Commerce Clause until 1937 when President Franklin Roosevelt intervened. The jurisprudence of the Commerce Clause was expanded to cover all the economic activities through the introduction of the “Court Packing Plan” by President Roosevelt.
Challenges and Criticisms
The constitutionality of the Commerce Clause has been challenged based on its vagueness in defining the zones of regulation for the Congress and the states’ governments. The clause fails in explicit definition and categorization of the local and national engagement. The clause was described as a doctrine that lacked clear constitutional textual basis by Justices Thomas and Scalia. While Justice Thomas inclined towards the elimination of the clause, Justice Scalia supported the existence of the clause but with scope limitation. The Supreme Court has experienced difficulty in application of the clause in the scrutinizing of the state commerce laws due to the absence of expertise in the assessment of the benefits and costs associated with the state programs.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the textual aspect of the Commerce Clause falls short of differentiating the Congress’ regulation power of the interstate commerce from that of the foreign commerce. The clause has successfully protected outside-state traders against hostile state regulation favoring in-state traders. However, the clause should be amended to include explicit definitions of the areas of jurisdiction of the Congress and the states.
Works Cited
Cross, Frank, and Roger Miller. The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases. 8th Ed., South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012.
Giachino, Renee. “Commerce Clause in Cyberspace.” CFIF, 2001, http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/policy_papers/commerceclause.html. Accessed 7 May 2017.
Klass, Alexandra. “Revitalizing Dormant Commerce Clause Review for Interstate Coordination.” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 100, no. 29, pp. 128-216.
Lundmark, Thomas. Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law. 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, 2008.
