Claiming Almost Everything is "Commerce"

Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce”

Posted on 20 July 2009

by Rob Natelson

How can Congress get around the Tenth Amendment and regulate almost every aspect of American life?

One way is by claiming that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply because Congress is merely acting within the scope of its enumerated powers. But to make this claim, one must assume that some of the enumerated powers are much broader than they really are.

One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power. This derives primarily from two sources:

(1) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” and

(2) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . .”

According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states. They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities.

How can they justify this? Basically, they make two arguments. The first argument was spun during the New Deal by a University of Chicago law professor. (Too many law professors spend entirely too much time fabricating constitutional theories to promote big government.)

This professor argued that during the Founding Era the word “commerce” meant more than trade. Instead, he contended, “commerce” included all gainful economic activities. Hence Congress has a license to regulate the entire economy.

An even broader version of this theory was published more recently by a Yale law professor. He maintains that “commerce” means any human interaction – so the federal government can regulate almost anything, so long as it doesn’t trample one of the specific guarantees in the Constitution, such as Free Speech.

On investigation, however, the claim that “commerce” meant “all gainful activities” or “all interactions” turns out to be completely untrue. It flies in the face of much of what we know about the Founding Era, including specific representations by leading Founders that most regulation would be reserved to the states.

But because it is sometimes necessary to prove the obvious, several other academics (such as Georgetown University’s Randy Barnett and I) have examined literally thousands of appearances of the word “commerce” in the historical records from the Founding Era. And those records show clearly that “Commerce” in the Constitution means trade and associated activities, but no more (e.g., http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf).

The second argument for an almost unlimited Commerce Power currently prevails on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Don’t let anyone tell you the present court is “conservative” on such matters.) This argument acknowledges that when the Founders wrote “Commerce,” they meant only trade and a few allied activities, such as navigation.

But it goes on to say that modern economic life, unlike life during the Founding Era, is highly interdependent, so it is now “necessary and proper” for Congress to regulate everything that substantially affects commerce.

But this argument also ignores history. Economic interdependence is nothing new: the promoters of the Constitution themselves emphasized it. But they also assured the public that, interdependent or not, most activities could be regulated only by the states.

They added that the Necessary and Proper Clause added nothing to federal authority, but merely clarified that the legal “doctrine of incidental powers” applied to the Constitution. And no power could be “incidental” if its scope swamped the principal power. In other words, Congress couldn’t take over a big field like manufacturing or agriculture on the pretense of regulating commerce.

If the Supreme Court were doing its job in this area, it would restrict Congress to the authority granted by the people through the Constitution. Because the Court is not doing what it should, it is up to the people to recall the federal government to its constitutional limits.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

Views: 51

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by Brian Cooper on July 22, 2009 at 4:25pm
Point out your direst subject matter please. As the base of the Constitution is not vague many of the Amendments are, at least perceived that way by the powers that be. Look at the full 13 amendment ! No lawyers in government but their are alot in office! The government is running this country from the legal aspects of the UCC! Not by the Rule of Law. Under the UCC they have ultimate power and control giving The People no rights.
Comment by 7R33SandR0P3S on July 22, 2009 at 3:09pm
Sorry, the constitution is not vague.
Comment by Brian Cooper on July 20, 2009 at 11:21am
Excellent point Marklar! Diversion by law or funding? Maybe you might want to write a blog on it in more detail. Thanks!
Comment by Marklar on July 20, 2009 at 11:13am
Good article but it fails to point out one of the most insidious uses of the commerce clause. When "federal funds" (our money) is distributed among the states to help pay for road building and maintenance it is assumed that any activity which may include the use of such federally funded roads is therefore a matter of federal jurisdiction. To anyone not hypnotized by eight years of legal mumbo-jumbo false logic and by receiving a law degree this seems rather ludicrous, and it is.

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Is this proof that the story about Charlie Kirk's assassination is false?
"Less Prone as usual the official version of the truth does not match the evidence and is labeled…"
yesterday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post This Memorable Anthem Given by Nick Freitas Hit the Nail on the Head Please Listen!
"Charlie Kirk was getting very critical against Israel and had turned down a lucrative deal from the…"
yesterday
Doc Vega's blog post was featured

The Army of Government Launched Psychopaths

They walk among us in most college towns. They seem relatively reasonable until political…See More
yesterday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post Is this proof that the story about Charlie Kirk's assassination is false?
yesterday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Is this proof that the story about Charlie Kirk's assassination is false?
"Have to sign in to YT for this. So. What I do is to go to https://ytdown.io/en/ and download…"
Saturday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was a Planned Civil War Averted?
"cheeki kea, you are spot on. The old guard is about to collapse! "
Thursday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Alligator Creek and a Japanese Massacre
"cheeki kea, the Japanese thought they could expand their empire and exact enough damage on the US…"
Thursday
Michelle Reichert favorited Burbia's video
Wednesday
cheeki kea posted a video

NEW DOCUMENTARY - Dissent Into Madness

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/dissent-into-madness/What if the delusions of the dissidents are in fact real? What if their paranoid f...
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post Alligator Creek and a Japanese Massacre
"Japan served themselves up no favours by inching out into the South Pacific as they soon found out.…"
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was a Planned Civil War Averted?
"Their plans did not work out because we are the news now, and the old news is the enemy. "
Wednesday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Alligator Creek and a Japanese Massacre

The year is 1942 just a few months after the Pearl Harbor disaster. Despite losses suffered by the…See More
Tuesday
Doc Vega commented on Burbia's video
Thumbnail

CHARLIE KIRK WAS CNP! JOSH REEVES 9-11-25

"With all due respect this guy comes off as a drunken asshole and he didn't even  know who…"
Sep 29
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Was a Planned Civil War Averted?

We are living in sadly historic times where good and evil are in battle all the time. Not that this…See More
Sep 28
Sandy posted a photo
Sep 28
Less Prone posted a video

President Trump addresses U.N. General Assembly - FULL SPEECH

President Donald Trump speaks at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.Full video here: https://www.c-span.org/event/white-house-event/preside...
Sep 28
Burbia posted a video

2 MIN AGO: Western Provinces MAJOR New WEXIT Announcement - Canada EXPLODES!

In a stunning turn of events, Western provinces just made a major new WEXIT announcement — and it’s shaking the foundations of Canadian unity. Is Western sep...
Sep 27
Doc Vega posted a blog post

How You Provoke a Civil War

In the world of counter intelligence which is simply one aspect of many pertaining to asymmetrical…See More
Sep 26
Burbia commented on Burbia's video
Thumbnail

CHARLIE KIRK WAS CNP! JOSH REEVES 9-11-25

"I don't follow as much with Josh Reeves than I use to. He seems to be a documentary producing…"
Sep 25
Burbia posted a video

CHARLIE KIRK WAS CNP! JOSH REEVES 9-11-25

DONATE-paypal-dayglow76@yahoo.comCashapp-reevesradioVenmo-Josh-Reeves-61FILMS AND AUDIOBOOKS DOWNLOAD STORE-https://store.payloadz.com/results/242828-josh-re...
Sep 25

© 2025   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted