Clause of article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress power "to regulate commerce"

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Indian Commerce Clause.


That Mercantilist Commerce Clause, by Sheldon Richman, 11 May 2007
Reviews the Oct 2004 paper "The Panda's Thumb: The Modest and Mercantilist Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" by law professor Calvin Johnson
"The Commerce Clause ... has been used to justify a wide expansion of government power, from antidiscrimination laws to drug prohibition to a ban on guns near schools. ... What does 'regulate commerce' mean? ... Here is Johnson's summary of his findings: 'In the original debates over adoption of the Constitution, regulation of commerce was used, almost exclusively, as a cover of words for specific mercantilist proposals related to deep-water shipping and foreign trade. ...' He adds, 'Neither trade with the Indians nor interstate commerce shows up as a significant issue in the original debates.'"
Related Topics: James Madison, Taxation
The Courts and the New Deal, Part 1, by William L. Anderson, Future of Freedom, Jun 2005
First part of a four-part series examining how Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal affected federal courts and other legal practices; contrasts the thoughts of Blackstone and Bentham
"The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has provided that 'hook' for the nationalizing of law. Article I, Section 8, No. 3 says that Congress shall have power 'to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' One of the things the Framers wished to avoid was for the states to levy tariffs against each other ... Unfortunately, Congress has seized upon the Commerce Clause as a mechanism for declaring nearly everything to be 'interstate commerce.' This provides the hook for creating laws that have usurped the rightful power given to the states ..."


Free Trade vs. Protectionism, by Donald J. Boudreaux, 31 Aug 2011
Defines free trade and protectionism, the use of tariffs to implement the latter, and gives Hong Kong and the United States as examples of the benefits of free trade
"One of the reasons for the United States' enormous economic growth over the past two centuries and high standard of living is that we have total free trade within America. There are no tariffs, there are no trade restrictions. If protectionism was such a dandy thing, then you'd think each state could make its citizens wealthier by putting up trade restrictions around the states' borders. They don't do that, fortunately, because the Commerce Clause in the Constitution prohibits such trade restrictions. As a consequence, we have this huge free-trade zone in America ..."

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful, by Erwin Chemerinsky, John Eastman, Reason TV, 25 Aug 2010
Professors John Eastman, former Dean, Chapman University Law School and Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Irvine School of Law, express contrasting opinions on the Commerce Clause

The introductory paragraph uses material from the Wikipedia article "Commerce Clause" as of 05 Oct 2018, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.