Difference between revisions of "Negative Commerce Clause"
m (bold) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The "negative" Commerce Clause, or "dormant"<ref>The supporters of the judicial doctrine tend to call it the "dormant" Commerce Clause, while its critics tend to call it the "negative" Commerce Clause. ''See infra'' n.2.</ref> Commerce Clause, is a judicial doctrine that invalidates state laws burdening interstate commerce even in the absence of any conflicting federal law. The principle is that the [[Commerce Clause]] keeps the field clear for Congress should it ever decide to regulate such interstate commerce. | + | The '''"negative" Commerce Clause''', or "dormant"<ref>The supporters of the judicial doctrine tend to call it the "dormant" Commerce Clause, while its critics tend to call it the "negative" Commerce Clause. ''See infra'' n.2.</ref> Commerce Clause, is a judicial doctrine that invalidates state laws burdening interstate commerce even in the absence of any conflicting federal law. The principle is that the [[Commerce Clause]] keeps the field clear for Congress should it ever decide to regulate such interstate commerce. |
The Negative or Dormant Commerce Clause prevents states from favoring local business interests or imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce. | The Negative or Dormant Commerce Clause prevents states from favoring local business interests or imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Both Justices [[Antonin Scalia]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] now criticize the Negative Commerce Clause as unfounded in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. On April 30, 2007, they concurred in a decision written by Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] that rejected a challenge under the Negative Commerce Clause to ordinances in upstate New York that favored local waste removal companies.<ref>''[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]'', 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4746 (2007).</ref> | Both Justices [[Antonin Scalia]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] now criticize the Negative Commerce Clause as unfounded in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. On April 30, 2007, they concurred in a decision written by Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] that rejected a challenge under the Negative Commerce Clause to ordinances in upstate New York that favored local waste removal companies.<ref>''[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]'', 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4746 (2007).</ref> | ||
| − | == References == | + | ==References== |
| − | |||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:United States Law]] | [[Category:United States Law]] | ||
Revision as of 13:19, August 6, 2008
The "negative" Commerce Clause, or "dormant"[1] Commerce Clause, is a judicial doctrine that invalidates state laws burdening interstate commerce even in the absence of any conflicting federal law. The principle is that the Commerce Clause keeps the field clear for Congress should it ever decide to regulate such interstate commerce.
The Negative or Dormant Commerce Clause prevents states from favoring local business interests or imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce.
Both Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas now criticize the Negative Commerce Clause as unfounded in the U.S. Constitution. On April 30, 2007, they concurred in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts that rejected a challenge under the Negative Commerce Clause to ordinances in upstate New York that favored local waste removal companies.[2]
References
- ↑ The supporters of the judicial doctrine tend to call it the "dormant" Commerce Clause, while its critics tend to call it the "negative" Commerce Clause. See infra n.2.
- ↑ United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth., 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4746 (2007).