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

Sandy posted a photo
6 hours ago
Doc Vega posted a blog post
16 hours ago
Saint Quinn favorited Burbia's video
yesterday
Doc Vega posted blog posts
yesterday
Burbia commented on tjdavis's blog post The Jewish Couple That Taught Bob Dylan Hebrew and Introduced Him to Zionism
"Haaretz put this story behind a pay wall. Sali Ariel and Terry Noble were the names of the couple…"
Wednesday
William Heckman is now a member of 12160 Social Network
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on tjdavis's photo
Wednesday
cheeki kea commented on cheeki kea's video
Thumbnail

This Woman DESTROYED Harley-Davidson's Future Forever

"It's a sad day on the highway. But I guess the show must go on. Watch out for the ruination of…"
Wednesday
cheeki kea posted a video

This Woman DESTROYED Harley-Davidson's Future Forever

This Woman DESTROYED Harley-Davidson's Future ForeverWelcome to Ride Radar – Your Frontline Source for Motorcycle Deals, Trends & Market Mayhem.Looking for t...
Wednesday
tjdavis posted a photo
Wednesday
Burbia posted a status
"Who knew releasing the MLK files and literally deflecting, it ends up implicating himself with the Epstein Files."
Tuesday
Burbia posted a video

Dan Bilzerian DEMOLISHES MAGA Nutjob Patrick Bet-David on His Own Show

Watch as two powerhouse personalities collide in this no-holds-barred debate on one of the world’s most contentious issues. Patrick Bet-David, known for his ...
Monday
Doc Vega's 7 blog posts were featured
Sunday
tjdavis's 2 blog posts were featured
Sunday
Less Prone favorited tjdavis's blog post Track AIPAC
Sunday
FREEDOMROX's blog post was featured

MRNA VACCINES: Question

Hello my fellow sojourners,I know it has been five years since the Plandemic, but one question has…See More
Sunday
Less Prone favorited FREEDOMROX's blog post MRNA VACCINES: Question
Sunday
cheeki kea commented on cheeki kea's photo
Jul 19
cheeki kea posted a photo
Jul 19
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Jul 18

© 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