The Scope of the Commerce Clause After Morrison

Jesse H. Choper, J. Yoo
{"title":"The Scope of the Commerce Clause After Morrison","authors":"Jesse H. Choper, J. Yoo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.255300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay, a contribution to a fall symposium at the Oklahoma City University law school, examines the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence in light of the Supreme Court's decision last Term in United States v. Morrison. Morrison found unconstitutional the Violence Against Women Act because its reach exceeded that permitted to the federal government under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We argue that the Court's restrictions on the commerce power, while certainly a departure from previous directions in the federalism area, alone present no drastic or revolutionary limitations on the federal government's ability to achieve its policies. Some might fear that Morrison will prevent Congress from using the Commerce Clause to reach noncommercial, intrastate activity. Other powers, however, such as the Spending and Taxing Clauses, provide Congress with alternative opportunities to reach beyond the new restrictions on the Commerce Clause. Even the Court's current pronouncements on the Commerce Clause provide Congress with ample power to reach a great deal of conduct. Due to the national integration of the economy and society, the channels and instrumentalities prongs of the Commerce Clause provide substantial authority to establish uniform federal rules over a vast amount of noncommercial conduct. Even if Congress wishes to intrude even further into intrastate activity, the Court's effort to impose the barrier at economic activity may prove sufficiently permeable to allow federal jurisdiction over most things that Congress would want to regulate. If the Court intends to impose serious restraints on Congress, its recent efforts in the Commerce Clause area can only be the early steps.","PeriodicalId":82220,"journal":{"name":"Oklahoma City University law review. Oklahoma City University","volume":"76 1","pages":"843"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oklahoma City University law review. Oklahoma City University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.255300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This essay, a contribution to a fall symposium at the Oklahoma City University law school, examines the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence in light of the Supreme Court's decision last Term in United States v. Morrison. Morrison found unconstitutional the Violence Against Women Act because its reach exceeded that permitted to the federal government under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We argue that the Court's restrictions on the commerce power, while certainly a departure from previous directions in the federalism area, alone present no drastic or revolutionary limitations on the federal government's ability to achieve its policies. Some might fear that Morrison will prevent Congress from using the Commerce Clause to reach noncommercial, intrastate activity. Other powers, however, such as the Spending and Taxing Clauses, provide Congress with alternative opportunities to reach beyond the new restrictions on the Commerce Clause. Even the Court's current pronouncements on the Commerce Clause provide Congress with ample power to reach a great deal of conduct. Due to the national integration of the economy and society, the channels and instrumentalities prongs of the Commerce Clause provide substantial authority to establish uniform federal rules over a vast amount of noncommercial conduct. Even if Congress wishes to intrude even further into intrastate activity, the Court's effort to impose the barrier at economic activity may prove sufficiently permeable to allow federal jurisdiction over most things that Congress would want to regulate. If the Court intends to impose serious restraints on Congress, its recent efforts in the Commerce Clause area can only be the early steps.
莫里森之后商业条款的适用范围
这篇文章是俄克拉荷马城大学法学院秋季研讨会的一篇论文,根据最高法院上学期对美国诉莫里森案的判决,研究了最高法院的商业条款法理学。莫里森认为《反对对妇女施暴法》违宪,因为该法的影响范围超出了《宪法》第一条第八款所允许的联邦政府的范围。我们认为,最高法院对商业权力的限制,虽然肯定偏离了先前在联邦制领域的方向,但就其本身而言,并没有对联邦政府实现其政策的能力构成激烈或革命性的限制。有些人可能担心莫里森会阻止国会利用《商业条款》触及非商业的、州内的活动。然而,其他权力,如支出和税收条款,为国会提供了超越商业条款新限制的替代机会。即使是最高法院目前关于《商业条款》的声明,也为国会提供了充分的权力来达成大量的行为。由于国家经济和社会的一体化,商业条款的渠道和工具方面提供了实质性的权力,为大量的非商业行为建立统一的联邦规则。即使国会希望进一步干预州内活动,法院在经济活动中设置障碍的努力也可能被证明具有足够的渗透性,从而允许联邦对国会想要监管的大多数事情拥有管辖权。如果最高法院打算对国会施加严格的限制,它最近在《商业条款》领域的努力只能是早期的步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信