fbpx

The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Exclusive Commerce Power

Mike Ramsey has another post about the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC), following up on my previous post and this post by Mike Greve.  Mike Ramsey attempts to set forth the strongest arguments against the DCC, with which I agree.  There is no good original meaning argument for the DCC.

There is, however, a somewhat stronger argument for an exclusive Commerce Power.  Unlike the DCC, one could conceivably conclude that the Commerce Clause provides exclusive authority to the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.  That would differ from the DCC because the exclusive authority would take away from the states all authority to regulate interstate commerce, not just the power to discriminate against interstate commerce.

While Chief Justice Marshall toyed with this argument, and there us something textually to be said for it, I still don’t think it works for three reasons.  First, the Commerce Clause does not say that it is exclusive and one would not normally infer from the language that the power was exclusive.  Second, as Mike Ramsey notes, the Constitution seems to provide for exclusive power by doing so expressly, as when it states that Congress shall have the power “to exercise exclusive  legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia.  Third, the Constitution seems to recognize that the states can pass laws involving interstate and foreign commerce, as it provides that “no state shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposes or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws” (although there is a complicated counterargument involving this provision).

It is too bad that Congress does not have the exclusive commerce power, because I believe it would be better than the original meaning.  An exclusive power would make it less likely that the states would have agreed to the New Deal expanded, concurrent commerce power.  Thus, the exclusive power would have been unlikely to have been expanded into the broad scope that the current commerce power has.  With a more limited scope, the federal government would have limited authority, as would the states.  There would not be two governments exercising the same authority and neither would have complete power to create cartels.  This arrangement came close to being followed in the pre New Deal era, when the Court came pretty close to recognizing a limited federal Commerce Power that was largely exclusive.   But it is now, sadly from a policy perspective, gone with the wind.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 03, 2014 at 12:32:31 pm

1) "An exclusive power would make it less likely that the states would have agreed to the New Deal expanded, concurrent commerce power."
2) "Thus, the exclusive power would have been unlikely to have been expanded into the broad scope that the current commerce power has."

3) " With a more limited scope, the federal government would have limited authority, as would the states. "

Ok, so #1 - arguable but probably true!

#2) -only true if #3 was, is and would continue to be true.
#3) - on its face - very highly likely.

However, all this presupposes a government of "virtuous" actors and not a bunch of semi-prophets who in their arrogance / delusions believe that they are well suited / equipped to make immanent the just society (be that economic, moral, etc.). I suppose what is missing is the "motivations" of the actors whether they be selfish or altruistic and these seem to be more powerful than any statutory / textual considerations.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 04, 2014 at 11:24:48 am

Prof. Rappaport

What say you to Hamburgers position regarding the 2nd Commerce Clause?

(For others interested - it is only 5 pages long - and worth the read)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2518187%20

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 10, 2014 at 20:47:15 pm

thanks for the Hamburger reference

read full comment
Image of Ken Masugi
Ken Masugi

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.