Throughout the course of time the elastic clause and the commerce clause has been utilized in court cases and arguments. With time the clauses have changed the fit into the change of society. As represented by various court cases. A variation of interpretations has been drawn out within the time frame of its establishment. A loose and strict interpretation has been implemented in the constitution depending on point of views. Although, the interpretation of the constitution is strictly restricted to the Judicial Branch as concluded in the court case Marbury Versus Madison. The elastic clause is known as congress has the power to do what is “Necessary and Proper”. In contrast, commerce clause is, often, limited with concerning trading issues. Thus concluding, the Elastic Clause has more power rather than the Commerce clause. The Commerce Clause is referred to as an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress …show more content…
New Court rises as well as new found interpretation and modifications. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court 's interpretation. Moreover, making the Commerce power is limited. As shown in various cases; the Elastic Clause hold within power. Granted that gives a looser interpretation for congress to work with. In the court case Maryland Versus McCulloch, left Congress with the power to control the traffic as it crossed the state line giving congress power of Commerce. This court case expanded the power of the Commerce Clause vastly, but, not sufficient enough to hold more power against the Elastic Clause. Although, many might object claiming the commerce clause is more powerful the issue is the clause is restricted towards solely commerce. Once again the Elastic Clause states congress can do what they deem necessary and
Instead, the Constitution grants Congress the power to pass legislation regulating all commerce bar intrastate trade (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Coupled with the subsequent clause enabling Congress to pass any legislation they deem necessary in order to carry out the laws passed by dint of the body’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18), the enumerated power to regulate interstate and international commerce endows Congress with a significant capacity to control the nation’s
Lincoln justified his action via the suspension clause, claiming that Congress was in recess and therefore could not fulfill its duty at the time. The Constitution itself specifically references habeas corpus and acknowledges that it can be suspended “in cases of rebellion,” however, as Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted in the ruling of Ex parte Merryman (1861), the writ of habeas corpus falls exclusively in the hands of Congress in Section 9 of Article 1“without the slightest reference to the executive branch.” Additionally, Article 6 provides all persons accused the “right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury of the state.” Both provisions, Justice Taney stated, are in “language too clear to be misunderstood by anyone.” The ruling concluded by declaring that President Lincoln’s actions in suspending habeas corpus in Maryland were unconstitutional as he did so without proper congressional authorization. According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland, Lincoln had overstepped his appropriate executive authority as
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
Beard, Charles Austin. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 23, 2014
Often this case is coined as the "Emancipation Proclamation of American Commerce," it should be gladly called that because of the reflection on the elasticity of the great paper known as the Constitution. The case solidified the Congress held all powers to regulate any modes of Commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden would prevail with the inventions of trains and airplanes as modes of commercial activities. Congress, with this case, was later to pass measure that would outlaw unfair price fixing on transportation of foods and pass epochal measures such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
In 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts were created under President John Adams due to tensions with France. The Sedition Act made it illegal for anyone to publish anything that could defame or speak badly of the United States government. The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed after President Adams’ presidential term was over. The Espionage and Sedition Acts, created from 1914 through 1921, made it illegal to cause disloyalty in the military forces and also prohibited any opposition to the government and their decisions in war. These acts were declared unconstitutional. Both were repealed after conflicts died down. The U.S. Patriot Act, created to investigate and protect against terrorism, made it legal for the United States’ government to search the records of citizens without their
Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a prime example of Congress’ ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce.
The Commerce Clause is located in the United States Constitution as clause 3 in Article. I. Section. 8. This section in the constitution states that congress had the ability to "Regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
With quick wit and an enlightening explanation of the Constitution, Jay Wexler’s The Odd Clauses did not disappoint. Covering the Constitution in a completely unique way, even the most simple-minded people in the world could walk away from this book understanding how complex the Constitution really is. Wexler takes a weird clause from the constitution, explains why it is odd, and then uses the clause to explain a whole segment of government. For example, Wexler uses the Weight and Measures Clause to explain the powers of Congress, and how they are to blame for crashing a $125 million probe into Mars.
3. Beard, Charles A. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 27 -- 33).
The War Powers Act or sometimes referred to as the War Powers Resolution is passed by congress. A group of Senators led by Jacov K. Javits of New York proposes fundamentally to change the constitutional relationship between President and Congress in the field of foreign affairs (Rostow). This act is an aftermath of the Vietnam War and it addresses a set of procedure for both President and Congress in the situation where the United States forces abroad could lead the United States into armed conflict. This act can be broken down into several parts. The first part asserts the policy behind the law, and the President’s power as a Commander in Chief is exercised only as a respond to declaration of war by Congress or in respond to national emergency; an attack upon the United States. The second part requires the President to discuss and consult with Congress before take an action in the U.S. Armed forces into hostilities and continue to discuss as long as the U.S. Armed forces remain in such condition. The third part explains that President should meet the requirement when he wants to introduce U.S Armed forces. The fourth part concerns more in congressional action and procedure. For instance, this part explains the procedure regarding legislation to withdraw the U.S. forces. The fifth part states the rules to be used in interpreting the War Power Act. At last, the sixth part explains separability provision in which if there is any part of the law is invalid, the rest of the law shall not considered invalid too.
These early Supreme Court decisions have made a lasting impression on the United States. Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review that strengthened the ability of the judcicary to act as a check against the legislative and executive branches by providing for the review of Congressional acts by the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of such acts. McCulloch v. Maryland allowed for the expansion of Congress’ implied powers needed to execute its delegated powers as well as defined the supremacy of constitutionally enacted federal entities over state statutes.
The War Powers Resolution was the result of a consistent and ongoing power struggle between the President and Congress in the United States. The Constitution of the United States lays out the powers of the different branches of government. These branches are specifically designed to check each other to create a balance of power. In regards to foreign security affairs, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress has the power to declare war, maintain the army and navy, and control war funding. Under article II, section 2 the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy. The President can also veto a declaration of war made by the Congress which must be overturned by a 3/4ths vote by the Congress. The Presidential veto power was also used to create a hurdle for the Legislative branch in passing this policy. However, as this essay will establish, the Congress was able to pass the bill despite the opposition from the Executive branch. The War Powers Resolution is a controversial piece of legislation because it challenged the power of the President as the Commander and Chief of the army and navy. This challenge was perpetrated by Congress in order to check this power of the President and strengthen the significance of the right to declare war.
The United States Congress is the legislative branch of our government made up by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our Congress, just as all branches of our government, derives its power from the US Constitution, specifically Article 1 section 8 which outlines the specific enumerated powers of Congress. This Article also outlines the implied powers of Congress. These implied powers include all things which are deemed necessary in order for Congress to carry out the jobs assigned to it by their enumerated powers.
Both the tenth amendment and the articles of confederation state that the powers not listed are reserved for the states. The reason why the tenth amendment was included was because of the fight that the anti-federalists put up. They demanded state and individual rights, so James Madison drafted the bill of rights. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”