The Correct Interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce Clause"

[m082844]

“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” –Article I, Section 8, 3rd Clause of the US Constitution

This will cover my interpretation of the commerce clause in detail.

If I may, I’m going to focus the pertinent part of this clause for this discussion: “The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce… among the several States”.

Let’s start with definitions. It’s always good to start with definitions.

The definition of “ Commerce” that makes the most sense to me form Merriam-Webster is:

-“the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”.

It appears that if it doesn’t involve transportation, then it’s not Commerce.

The definitions of “ Regulate” that makes the most sense to me form Merriam-Webster are:

-“to govern or direct according to rule”

-“to bring under the control of law or constituted authority”

Now, the meaning I gather from “among the several States” is actually the regulation of States, not citizens of the several States. I could be wrong, but I notice they are very specific to whom they are referring. For example, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…” from Article I, Section 2, 3rd Clause of the US Constitution; “This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States…” 22 Amendment, 2nd Clause of the US Constitution; ect Each representing “the several states” Vs. “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…” –Article I, Section 2, 1st Clause; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” –1st Amendment; “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”—2nd Amendment; “The right of the people to be secure…”—4th Amendment; etc. Each representing “the people”.

The distortion I see of the “Commerce clause” are as follows:

a. Change the application of Congress’ power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” from “the several states” to “the people of the several States”. That appears to be false.

b. Change “Commerce” from an existing and present action to some arbitrary undefined link to any possible or potential human action that did, does, or will exist. It’s the “will exist” together with “does exist” that bothers me. “Will exist” means it doesn’t exist now; so to regulate something that does and doesn’t exist gives an unlimited power to regulate—i.e., anything that affects Commerce, which is every single human action. That cannot be correct within the context of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

c. Change the meaning of “Commerce” from “the exchange of goods” to “the production of goods”. Congress doesn’t have the power to regulate the production of goods [AKA Socialism]—only the exchange of goods [AKA Commerce].

All three of those changes I think are patently false. There is only one correct meaning assigned to that clause, and therefore, there can only be one correct interpretation. So is it to regulate the “several States”, or the “people of the several States”? Is it to regulate the “exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”, or “every single human action”? Is it to regulate the “exchange of goods [AKA Commerce}” or the “production of goods [AKA Socialism]”.

It is possible for my suggested interpretations to be incorrect, but not likely; so if you disagree please give your reasons along with your interpretation. An English Major who specializes in Writing and Composition would add a lot of value to this discussion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarifying quotes to support my argument:

"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."-- Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution

"A very material object of this power [to regulate the commerce between its several members] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility." –James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 42