Commerce Clause - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* top */Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup, typos fixed: 5-4 → 5–4

2023-05-15T22:54:20Z

top: Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup, typos fixed: 5-4 → 5–4

Mr. Nationalist: Fixed typo.

2023-05-03T19:50:23Z

Fixed typo.

Mr. Nationalist at 03:04, October 12, 2020

2020-10-12T03:04:24Z

Progressingamerica: Background

2019-02-17T22:24:04Z

Background

1990'sguy at 04:17, April 3, 2018

2018-04-03T04:17:30Z

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T06:33:54Z

clean up & uniformity

Aschlafly: update

2015-12-27T17:31:27Z

update

TheAmericanRedoubt: Added hyperlinks

2014-04-07T16:59:01Z

Added hyperlinks

Aschlafly: The primary legal challenge to ObamaCare is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause.

2012-06-19T05:13:05Z

The primary legal challenge to ObamaCare is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause.

Aschlafly: /* See Also */ added another

2012-06-19T03:42:50Z

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Only beginning in 1995, in ''[[Lopez v. United States]]'', did the [[Rehnquist Court]] begin to limit the scope of what Congress might do based on this clause; in this case striking down the overarching Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which was being used against a twelfth grader.
-The primary initial legal challenge to [[ObamaCare]] is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause, which prevailed 5-4 on this issue in 2012, but then lost 5-4 when it was upheld under the Taxing Power instead.
+The primary initial legal challenge to [[ObamaCare]] is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause, which prevailed 5–4 on this issue in 2012, but then lost 5-4 when it was upheld under the Taxing Power instead.
 ==Background==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The '''Commerce Clause''' is the provision in the [[U.S. Constitution]] that establishes the power of [[Congress]] to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign entities.  It is set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
-This is one of the most important, and most-often litigated, clauses in the [[U.S. Constitution]].  It is the single most important source of power for [[Congress]], and has been <s>ab</s>used by it to pass laws governing business, [[civil rights]], [[abortion]] and other social areas. It has often been invoked by [[big government]] [[liberal]]s who wish to give more power to the [[Federal Government]] and/or dismantle [[states' rights]].
+This is one of the most important, and most-often litigated, clauses in the [[U.S. Constitution]].  It is the single most important source of power for [[Congress]], and has been used by it to pass laws governing business, [[civil rights]], [[abortion]] and other social areas. It has often been invoked by [[big government]] [[liberal]]s who wish to give more power to the [[Federal Government]] and/or dismantle [[states' rights]].
 The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] greatly expanded the reach of the clause in [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]. The majority opinion cited Caminetti v. United States, which deemed that the interstate travel of passengers could be regulated as interstate commerce, and [[McCulloch v. Maryland]], amongst others, to conclude that "[T]he power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&page=241|work=Supreme Court of the United States|publisher=FindLaw|author=Justice [[Tom Clark]]|language=English|accessdate=May 2, 2009|date=Dec 14 1964|title=ATLANTA MOTEL V. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)}}</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The '''Commerce Clause''' is the provision in the [[U.S. Constitution]] that establishes the power of [[Congress]] to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign entities.  It is set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
-This is one of the most important, and most-often litigated, clauses in the [[U.S. Constitution]].  It is the single most important source of power for [[Congress]], and has been <s>b</s>used by it to pass laws governing business, [[civil rights]], [[abortion]] and other social areas. It has often been invoked by [[big government]] [[liberal]]s who wish to give more power to the [[Federal Government]] and/or dismantle [[states' rights]].
+This is one of the most important, and most-often litigated, clauses in the [[U.S. Constitution]].  It is the single most important source of power for [[Congress]], and has been <s>ab</s>used by it to pass laws governing business, [[civil rights]], [[abortion]] and other social areas. It has often been invoked by [[big government]] [[liberal]]s who wish to give more power to the [[Federal Government]] and/or dismantle [[states' rights]].
 The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] greatly expanded the reach of the clause in [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]. The majority opinion cited Caminetti v. United States, which deemed that the interstate travel of passengers could be regulated as interstate commerce, and [[McCulloch v. Maryland]], amongst others, to conclude that "[T]he power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&page=241|work=Supreme Court of the United States|publisher=FindLaw|author=Justice [[Tom Clark]]|language=English|accessdate=May 2, 2009|date=Dec 14 1964|title=ATLANTA MOTEL V. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)}}</ref>

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The primary initial legal challenge to [[ObamaCare]] is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause, which prevailed 5-4 on this issue in 2012, but then lost 5-4 when it was upheld under the Taxing Power instead.
 ==See also==
@@ Line 14: / Line 17: @@
 *[[Necessary and Proper Clause]]
 *[[General Welfare Clause]]
 ==References==
-<references/>
+{{reflist|1}}
 ==External links==

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The primary initial legal challenge to [[ObamaCare]] is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause, which prevailed 5-4 on this issue in 2012, but then lost 5-4 when it was upheld under the Taxing Power instead.
 ==See also==
 *[[Negative Commerce Clause]]
 *[[Supremacy Clause]]
 *[[Necessary and Proper Clause]]
 *[[General Welfare Clause]]
 [[Category:United States Constitution]]
 [[Category:United States Government]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:13, June 19, 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Only beginning in 1995, in ''[[Lopez v. United States]]'', did the [[Rehnquist Court]] begin to limit the scope of what Congress might do based on this clause; in this case striking down the overarching Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which was being used against a twelfth grader.		Only beginning in 1995, in ''[[Lopez v. United States]]'', did the [[Rehnquist Court]] begin to limit the scope of what Congress might do based on this clause; in this case striking down the overarching Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which was being used against a twelfth grader.
		+
		+	The primary legal challenge to [[ObamaCare]] is its lack of authority under the Commerce Clause.

	==References==		==References==