masterskop
New member
Questions concerning "Intrastate" commerce vs. "Interstate" commerce
Hi,
I have a question on the ongoing saga of states vs. the federal government on gun manufacturing. Where does it state in the Constitution that the Federal Government can and will regulate intrastate commerce? The court case of Wickard v. Fliburn shows the Federal Government taking a large step into the intrusion of States Rights under the 10th Amendment. A state has the inherent right to regulate its domestic commerce. If the domestic commerce was gun manufacturing and each state manufactured its own gun (ie. handguns were made from the ground up with the state itself refining minerals to make the complete gun), how could Congress regulate that as interstate commerce? How would it be a burden on interstate commerce according to the government?
Also, if a state were able to manufacture its own guns, how would this be a burden on gun manufactures like Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc.? Would the manufacturing and selling of "state" guns violate interstate commerce of gun manufactures like Colt? Or, would this allow competitiveness come back into capitalism?
edited:
I found this interesting: United States vs. Lopez 1995. I copied of the second to last paragraph:
Since 1937 and until United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court had consistently upheld, and greatly expanded, Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. Before the New Deal, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause literally and narrowly, ruling in United States v. E. C. Knight (1895) and Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935), for example, that the Commerce Clause only permits federal regulation of the buying, selling, and transportation of goods between states, not over the manufacture of goods within states, even if that manufacture was closely related to interstate commerce. Yet in the late 1930s the Supreme Court greatly changed course, ruling that federal laws regulating the local production of goods "substantially affected" interstate commerce and was therefore constitutional. By the 1960s and 1970s, in fact, the Court ruled that laws banning segregation in roadside motels and restaurants and outlawing local practices of loan sharking "substantially affected" interstate commerce and were constitutional.
This information came from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html
You would think that the U.S. Supreme Court would revisit Wickard v. Fliburn and overturn that ruling.
Hi,
I have a question on the ongoing saga of states vs. the federal government on gun manufacturing. Where does it state in the Constitution that the Federal Government can and will regulate intrastate commerce? The court case of Wickard v. Fliburn shows the Federal Government taking a large step into the intrusion of States Rights under the 10th Amendment. A state has the inherent right to regulate its domestic commerce. If the domestic commerce was gun manufacturing and each state manufactured its own gun (ie. handguns were made from the ground up with the state itself refining minerals to make the complete gun), how could Congress regulate that as interstate commerce? How would it be a burden on interstate commerce according to the government?
Also, if a state were able to manufacture its own guns, how would this be a burden on gun manufactures like Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc.? Would the manufacturing and selling of "state" guns violate interstate commerce of gun manufactures like Colt? Or, would this allow competitiveness come back into capitalism?
edited:
I found this interesting: United States vs. Lopez 1995. I copied of the second to last paragraph:
Since 1937 and until United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court had consistently upheld, and greatly expanded, Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. Before the New Deal, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause literally and narrowly, ruling in United States v. E. C. Knight (1895) and Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935), for example, that the Commerce Clause only permits federal regulation of the buying, selling, and transportation of goods between states, not over the manufacture of goods within states, even if that manufacture was closely related to interstate commerce. Yet in the late 1930s the Supreme Court greatly changed course, ruling that federal laws regulating the local production of goods "substantially affected" interstate commerce and was therefore constitutional. By the 1960s and 1970s, in fact, the Court ruled that laws banning segregation in roadside motels and restaurants and outlawing local practices of loan sharking "substantially affected" interstate commerce and were constitutional.
This information came from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html
You would think that the U.S. Supreme Court would revisit Wickard v. Fliburn and overturn that ruling.
Last edited: