Changes

This is Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, and it is one of the most important clauses in all of the Constitution.  In Federalist (Paper) No. 45, James Madison stated that  that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”

This is Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, and it is one of the most important clauses in all of the Constitution.  In Federalist (Paper) No. 45, James Madison stated that  that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”

Much, perhaps even most, of what Congress passes as laws are based on the Commerce Clause, because "commerce" is considered to include any activity that has any kind of financial or economic impact.  Simply put, "commerce" is almost everything, and Congress can pass laws to regulate it if the activity has an interstate impact (an effect on more than one state).

Much, perhaps even most, of what Congress passes as laws are based on the Commerce Clause, because "commerce" is considered to include any activity that has any kind of financial or economic impact.  Simply put, "commerce" is almost everything, and Congress can pass laws to regulate it if the activity has an interstate impact (an effect on people in more than one state).

The famous U.S. Supreme Court case of ''Wickard v. Filburn'' (1942) extended the scope of the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to limit how much wheat a man grows on his own property to feed his own family.  How did that affect "commerce ... among the several States"?  According to the Supreme Court, the farmer's growing of wheat on his own land, for his own family's use, enabled him to avoid buying wheat for his family in the market, and that affected the overall price of wheat in interstate commerce.  Price, after all, is the result of supply and demand, and the farmer reduced the interstate demand for wheat by growing his own, and that affected the interstate price (ever so slightly).  That effect on interstate commerce was enough for Congress to have the power to limit how much wheat someone can grow on his own land!

The famous U.S. Supreme Court case of ''Wickard v. Filburn'' (1942) extended the scope of the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to limit how much wheat a man may grow on his own property for himself.  How did that affect "commerce ... among the several States"?  According to the Supreme Court, the farmer's growing of wheat on his own land, for his own use, enabled him to avoid buying wheat in the market, and that affected the overall price of wheat in interstate commerce.  Price, after all, is the result of supply and demand, and the farmer reduced the interstate demand for wheat by growing his own, and that affected the interstate price (ever so slightly).  That effect on interstate commerce was enough for Congress to have the power to limit how much wheat someone can grow on his own land!

Starting in 1995, the Supreme Court began to limit =, slightly, the very broad power under the Commerce Clause, beginning with its decision in ''United States v. Lopez'' (1995).  Congress had passed a law prohibiting the possession of firearms (guns) within 50 feet of schools.  Congress enacted this law as part of a gun control agenda, supposedly to reduce gun violence near schools.  (Actually, many studies have shown that there is less crime when there is more possession of guns, because guns are most often used for defensive purposes.)

But starting in 1995, the Supreme Court began to limit, albeit slightly, the very broad power under the Commerce Clause, beginning with its decision in ''United States v. Lopez'' (1995).  Congress had passed a law prohibiting the possession of firearms (guns) within 50 feet of schools.  Congress enacted this law as part of a gun control agenda, supposedly to reduce gun violence near schools.  (Actually, many studies have shown that there is less crime when there is more possession of guns, because guns are most often used for defensive purposes.)

A high school senior in San Antonio, Texas, was caught possessing a gun, and he was prosecuted under this federal law passed by Congress.  His defense in court was that the law is unconstitutional because it goes beyond the "enumerated" powers of Congress.  Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact gun control, and Congress based its law on the Commerce Clause.  Congress said that gun violence affects interstate commerce, and thus Congress could pass a law to reduce gun violence.  Under the view of Congress, its law prohibiting gun possession within 50 feet of a school was constitutional and enforceable.

A high school senior in San Antonio, Texas, was caught possessing a gun, and he was prosecuted under this federal law passed by Congress.  His defense in court was that the law is unconstitutional because it goes beyond the "enumerated" powers of Congress.  Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact gun control.  Congress based its law on the Commerce Clause.  Congress said that gun violence affects interstate commerce, and thus Congress could pass a law to reduce gun violence.  Under the view of Congress, its law prohibiting gun possession within 50 feet of a school was constitutional and enforceable.

By a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (it has 9 Justices overall), the student won.  The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by banning guns near schools.  Although the Commerce Clause has long been interpreted extremely broadly, Congress overstepped its power this time and the law was invalid.  The student could not be prosecuted by the federal government for violating this invalid federal law.

By a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (it has 9 Justices overall), the student won.  The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by banning guns near schools.  Although the Commerce Clause has long been interpreted extremely broadly, Congress overstepped its power this time and the law was invalid.  The student could not be prosecuted by the federal government for violating this invalid federal law.  This decision halted the expansion in use of the Commerce Clause.

==== "Dormant" Commerce Clause ====

==== "Dormant" Commerce Clause ====

The “dormant” Commerce Clause is implied by the Commerce Clause, by prohibiting states from enacting laws that interfere with interstate commerce.  For examples, states are not allowed to impose taxes on goods or services provided from within one state to a buyer in another state.

The “dormant” Commerce Clause is implied by the Commerce Clause, by prohibiting states from enacting laws that interfere with interstate commerce even when Congress is silent about it.  For example, states have traditionally not been allowed to impose taxes on goods or services provided from within one state to a buyer in another state, unless allowed by Congress to pass those laws.

It is the "dormant" Commerce Clause that has kept the internet from being regulated by state laws.  Most internet traffic travels among multiple states, and only Congress has the authority to regulate that interstate "traffic".

It is the "dormant" Commerce Clause that has kept the internet from being regulated and disrupted by state laws.  Most internet traffic travels among multiple states, and only Congress has the authority to regulate that interstate "traffic".

=== Copyright and Patent Clause ===

=== Copyright and Patent Clause ===