We've heard of Wickard v. Filburn, but I have an epiphany in my American Politics class. The textbook mentioned a case by the name of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824. Curious, I went ahead and checked out a book summarizing "leading cases on the Constitution" to quote the title. This was originally so that I could look at some of the cases, to reference for a possible amendment defining interstate commerce to limit power under the clause. I'm still thinking about that, I might go with another thread to discuss it.
Anyway, the book listed dozens of cases relating to the commerce clause, and it seems that things have gone back and forth several times in history. I found this interesting, and it's not something I've heard about here. I'll be listing case and year, my summing up of the summary in the book of some of the cases listed. I've yet to look up actual court documents, but I was interested in seeing what people here, to include those that have probably done more study of the issue think of the history of the issue.
Gibbons v. Odgen 1824-- NY state can't grant a monoply on water navigation because interstate commerce also travels on those waters. Since granting said monoply would limit who could move interstate commerce within the state, it is above the level of the state to regulate.
Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia 1851-- Congress have the right to regulate port pilots, but has indicated that states will regulate. This is because the states are better situated to make regulations suiting the different conditions in their ports.
The Daniel Ball 1871-- Since some goods on the ship were from out of state(Michigan) and others were headed out of state, the ship is regulated even though it never leaves the state.
U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. 1895-- The sugar made by the companies forming a monopoly isn't interstate commerce until it travels in interstate commerce. The law doesn't attempt to regulate commerce, and the gov didn't prove that the monopoly was trying to do so.
Rhodes v. Iowa 1898-- interstate travel does not end until the commerce reaches it's ultimate conclusion. Thus, state law cannot apply until then. A box sitting in a warehouse cannot be searched for liquior, even of the state forbids transport of liquor, becuase it hasn't finished it's journey.
Champion v. Ames 1903-- A law by Congress to prohibit transportation of lottery tickets across state lines is consitutional, since it doesn't affect intrastate movement.
Houston, E&W Texas Ry. Co v. United States 1914-- The state must set it's R.R. rates the same as in other states, since that would give in state people an unfair advantage over out of state people. The "Shreveport Rule" is adopted, which ultimately makes for the unlimited power of the commerce clause.
Carter v. Carter Coal 1936-- Mining coal isn't interstate commerce, since all the activities with labor and such are local issues. Federal power is after the commodity comes to rest after interstate transportation. This was reversed later.
South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. 1938-- Limits on size and weight of trucks does not violate the commerce clause since safety on highways is a state matter. It also does not discriminate between interstate and intrastate commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn 1942-- Growing your own wheat competes with commercial wheat that is in interstate commerce, and so affects interstate commerce enough to be regulated. Most quoted interstate commerce case.
Southern Pacific v. Arizona 1945-- Limiting the lenth of trains in the state produced a burden on interstate commerce beyond dubious claims of safety. Railroads are a different jurisdiction than highways, and are under federal control.
If anyone thinks there's one I should have listed, let me know and I will. The book also cuts off with "Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. U.S.", in 1964. If there's one past that that should be mentioned, let me know. It's gotten me interested in looking at ways to invalidate commerce clause regulation of firearms that are slightly different than most approaches I've seen.
Source is Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution 12th Edition, by Paul C. Bartholomew and Joseph H. Menez. Copyright is 1983.
Anyway, the book listed dozens of cases relating to the commerce clause, and it seems that things have gone back and forth several times in history. I found this interesting, and it's not something I've heard about here. I'll be listing case and year, my summing up of the summary in the book of some of the cases listed. I've yet to look up actual court documents, but I was interested in seeing what people here, to include those that have probably done more study of the issue think of the history of the issue.
Gibbons v. Odgen 1824-- NY state can't grant a monoply on water navigation because interstate commerce also travels on those waters. Since granting said monoply would limit who could move interstate commerce within the state, it is above the level of the state to regulate.
Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia 1851-- Congress have the right to regulate port pilots, but has indicated that states will regulate. This is because the states are better situated to make regulations suiting the different conditions in their ports.
The Daniel Ball 1871-- Since some goods on the ship were from out of state(Michigan) and others were headed out of state, the ship is regulated even though it never leaves the state.
U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. 1895-- The sugar made by the companies forming a monopoly isn't interstate commerce until it travels in interstate commerce. The law doesn't attempt to regulate commerce, and the gov didn't prove that the monopoly was trying to do so.
Rhodes v. Iowa 1898-- interstate travel does not end until the commerce reaches it's ultimate conclusion. Thus, state law cannot apply until then. A box sitting in a warehouse cannot be searched for liquior, even of the state forbids transport of liquor, becuase it hasn't finished it's journey.
Champion v. Ames 1903-- A law by Congress to prohibit transportation of lottery tickets across state lines is consitutional, since it doesn't affect intrastate movement.
Houston, E&W Texas Ry. Co v. United States 1914-- The state must set it's R.R. rates the same as in other states, since that would give in state people an unfair advantage over out of state people. The "Shreveport Rule" is adopted, which ultimately makes for the unlimited power of the commerce clause.
Carter v. Carter Coal 1936-- Mining coal isn't interstate commerce, since all the activities with labor and such are local issues. Federal power is after the commodity comes to rest after interstate transportation. This was reversed later.
South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. 1938-- Limits on size and weight of trucks does not violate the commerce clause since safety on highways is a state matter. It also does not discriminate between interstate and intrastate commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn 1942-- Growing your own wheat competes with commercial wheat that is in interstate commerce, and so affects interstate commerce enough to be regulated. Most quoted interstate commerce case.
Southern Pacific v. Arizona 1945-- Limiting the lenth of trains in the state produced a burden on interstate commerce beyond dubious claims of safety. Railroads are a different jurisdiction than highways, and are under federal control.
If anyone thinks there's one I should have listed, let me know and I will. The book also cuts off with "Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. U.S.", in 1964. If there's one past that that should be mentioned, let me know. It's gotten me interested in looking at ways to invalidate commerce clause regulation of firearms that are slightly different than most approaches I've seen.
Source is Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution 12th Edition, by Paul C. Bartholomew and Joseph H. Menez. Copyright is 1983.
Hence, the ludicrous nature of the "collective right" positions taken by gun-grabbers.