University of South Florida The Commerce Clause Case Analysis

Review Chapter 3 & 5 and perform additional research you deem necessary particularly concerning the Commerce Clause. Submit ONE, two-to-three page (250 word minimum), double spaced, original paper typed in a Word document using Times New Roman type, font size 12. Please make sure your response complies with the MLA format.

Step 1 Write a paper that answers the questions below.In terms of job loss, North Carolina is one of the states most adversely affected by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Assume hypothetically that North Carolina is considering a 25% tariff (tax) on all foreign-manufactured textiles and furniture items imported into the state. The tariff’s purpose will be predominately protective in nature, designed to protect and advance textile and furniture manufacturers in North Carolina and to create jobs. In a 250- to 500-word (double spaced Word document) original paper, advise the lawmakers in North Carolina of the CONSTITUTIONALITY of such a tariff and what other alternative remedies are available, if any. DO NOT PLAGIARIZE!

The Commerce Clause is the specific item in Article I, section 8, most important to your future as a businessperson. It calls upon Congress “to regulate commerce . . . among the several States,” and its impact is described in the next section.

Interstate Commerce

With the Commerce Clause, the Framers sought to accomplish several things in response to the commercial chaos that existed under the Articles of Confederation. They wanted the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The Framers also wanted to give Congress the power to bring coordination and fairness to trade among the states, and to stop the states from imposing the taxes and regulations that were wrecking the nation’s domestic trade.

Virtually all of the numerous statutes that affect businesses are passed under the Commerce Clause. But what does it mean to regulate interstate commerce? Are all business transactions “interstate commerce,” or are there exceptions? In the end, the courts must interpret what the Constitution means.

An important test of the Commerce Clause came in the Depression years of the 1930s, in Wickard v. Filburn. The price of wheat and other grains had fluctuated wildly, severely harming farmers and the national food market. Congress sought to stabilize prices by limiting the bushels per acre that a farmer could grow. Filburn grew more wheat than federal law allowed and was fined. In defense, he claimed that Congress had no right to regulate him because none of his wheat went into interstate commerce. He sold some locally and used the rest on his own farm as food for livestock and as seed. The Commerce Clause, Filburn claimed, gave Congress no authority to limit what he could do.

The Supreme Court disagreed and held that Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Filburn’s wheat affected interstate commerce because the more he grew for use on his own farm, the less he would need to buy in the open market of interstate commerce. In the end, “interstate commerce” does not require that things travel from one state to another.

In United States v. Lopez, however, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause. Congress had passed a criminal statute called the “Gun-Free School Zones Act,” which forbade any individual from possessing a firearm in a school zone. The goal of the statute was obvious: to keep schools safe. Lopez was convicted of violating the act and appealed his conviction all the way to the high Court, claiming that Congress had no power to pass such a law.

The government argued that the Commerce Clause gave it the power to pass the law, but the Supreme Court was unpersuaded.n our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. In this case we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress power to enact the individual mandate under the CommerceClause or as an exercise of its power to tax.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. [The Government argues] Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

[But] the individual mandate does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions within the scope of federal regulation, and empower Congress to make those decisions.

[This] logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem. Many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance. Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.

The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.

The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.

Congress also has the power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must pay the IRS. The mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it [is] within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The “dormant” or “negative” aspect of the Commerce Clause governs state efforts to regulate interstate commerce. The dormant aspect holds that a state statute discriminating against interstate commerce is almost always unconstitutional. Local residents and out-of-state wineries sued, claiming that the state regulations violated the dormant Commerce Clause.