Commercial Impact

The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution is of great importance in establishing the broad powers of the Legislative branch. Despite these broad, expansive, and plenary powers; there are, however, limitations that have been handled in a judicial capacity. As well, the Tenth Amendment provides for some restrictions, when it is attached to the analysis applied to these legislative actions. Moreover, these limitations are entirely binding to the analysis, and should not be abrogated apart from the interpretation of congressional intent and the language of the statutes enacted under the Commerce Clause. 

Commerce Clause jurisprudence is actually quite interesting. Some of the most intricate and complex discussions of where legislative influence on the states is too much, arise under this clause. One of the most interesting aspects of this kind of discussion seems to flow heavily from conflicting constitutional implications. Such as, United States v. Lopez, where Congress intended to regulate guns in school zones under the Commerce Clause. Though I can recognize the syllogistic step to getting there, as guns, used in criminal instances do influence commerce in a positive and negative manner. But what irks most people is the confrontation of two constitutional powers. The Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Individual Liberty versus Congressional law-making powers. One a representative of autonomy and one a representative of The People. 

The conflict between these two massive powers is the brunt of the negative rhetoric. Those who prefer safety over the individual and those who prefer the individual over safety have run into some of the results of the decision in Lopez. Not that I have a fix to the problem, or even a suggestion to repair the damage, but limitation on Commerce Clause legislation would lead me to believe that market corrections, social changes, and chip-away legislation will correct the issues inherent in Lopez like cases.

The Wheat Case is by far the most interesting case to me. A bit of thinking places me here: Negative (Dollars removed from market by self-sustaining crop yields) and positive (Wheat entering the market possibly effecting interstate commerce) influence on the market economy is a plus/minus Commerce Clause analysis. Which, to me, seems far too broad. The implications are limitless, which I believe was a concern of one of the justices at the time. I would tend to agree sir; I would tend to agree. 

This balance between positive and negative impact makes sense, so long as it remains detached from other constitutionally implicated rights. Especially those running headlong into individual rights under the Bill of Rights. 

This is really just informative and for general thought. I haven’t had a very in depth lesson on this topic. If you have any information, links, etc., related to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I would enjoy reading further.