I don't know if it counts as having "deep meaning," but "affecting commerce" is one of those legal phrases that doesn't mean what you might think it does.
See, the U.S. Constitution is ostensibly a charter for a federal government of limited powers to make laws relating to certain subjects. For example, the federal government lacks authority to make a law against murder and then take it upon itself to prosecute every homicide in the country.
Instead, Congress can make laws only in connection with some specific grant of power in the Constitution. For instance, the Constitution lets Congress create post offices. Since post offices require postal workers, our courts have held, Congress may forbid murdering postal workers while they are at work.
Which brings us to the Commerce Clause. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." There is an argument, which I find persuasive, that unless you're actually carting goods or doing services across state lines, your activities are not subject to regulation under this clause.
This is distinctly a minority opinion, though. In fact, Congress's authority under this clause has been held to reach anything that affects interstate commerce. Well, what does that mean?
If you run a hot dog stand, and you buy mustard made in another state, then your business has been held to affect interstate commerce, and you are subject to federal regulation. If you grow wheat on your own farm, for your own consumption, you might consequently not buy wheat that has traveled across a state line, so that affects interstate commerce, too.
As for the possession of a firearm affecting interstate commerce, the gun itself, or part of it, may have been made in another state. Or the bullets might have been.
In short, just about everything is potentially subject to federal legislation under this clause. Congress puts the "affecting commerce" language into statutes to make clear what Constitutional authority it is relying on when it makes laws.
The real scope of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause is one of those legal debates that flares up now and then. After the Constitutional crisis of the 1930s, the Supreme Court was very leery of invalidating acts of Congress, and thus took an extremely broad view of federal power under the Commerce Clause. Reagan and (to a lesser degree) Bush Pére appointed some justices to the Supreme Court who have been working to contain this power somewhat, but it's still very broad. In short, this is an area of Constitutional interpretation that looked settled for about fifty years, but has been getting a new look over the past two decades or so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2002-11-07 10:04 am (UTC)See, the U.S. Constitution is ostensibly a charter for a federal government of limited powers to make laws relating to certain subjects. For example, the federal government lacks authority to make a law against murder and then take it upon itself to prosecute every homicide in the country.
Instead, Congress can make laws only in connection with some specific grant of power in the Constitution. For instance, the Constitution lets Congress create post offices. Since post offices require postal workers, our courts have held, Congress may forbid murdering postal workers while they are at work.
Which brings us to the Commerce Clause. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." There is an argument, which I find persuasive, that unless you're actually carting goods or doing services across state lines, your activities are not subject to regulation under this clause.
This is distinctly a minority opinion, though. In fact, Congress's authority under this clause has been held to reach anything that affects interstate commerce. Well, what does that mean?
If you run a hot dog stand, and you buy mustard made in another state, then your business has been held to affect interstate commerce, and you are subject to federal regulation. If you grow wheat on your own farm, for your own consumption, you might consequently not buy wheat that has traveled across a state line, so that affects interstate commerce, too.
As for the possession of a firearm affecting interstate commerce, the gun itself, or part of it, may have been made in another state. Or the bullets might have been.
In short, just about everything is potentially subject to federal legislation under this clause. Congress puts the "affecting commerce" language into statutes to make clear what Constitutional authority it is relying on when it makes laws.
The real scope of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause is one of those legal debates that flares up now and then. After the Constitutional crisis of the 1930s, the Supreme Court was very leery of invalidating acts of Congress, and thus took an extremely broad view of federal power under the Commerce Clause. Reagan and (to a lesser degree) Bush Pére appointed some justices to the Supreme Court who have been working to contain this power somewhat, but it's still very broad. In short, this is an area of Constitutional interpretation that looked settled for about fifty years, but has been getting a new look over the past two decades or so.
Now, may I have the next slide, please?