| |||||||||||
|
Editorial: States' Rights Killed My ISP continued Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution delineates the powers of Congress. Clause 3, known as "the commerce clause," says, "Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations; and among the several states; and with Indian tribes." This clause has been variously interpreted throughout the history of the United States. It was discussed when the states were deciding whether or not to accept the Constitution. It was raised during the Civil War. At every crisis in the United States, from its founding to the civil rights era and the present day, the interpretation of the commerce clause has been heatedly debated. Commentators point to the enaction of the welfare state by President Roosvelt in 1937 as the start of current arguments about the meaning of the commerce clause. Liberal commentators see the current interpretation of the commerce clause as a necessary foundation for the welfare state, while conservative commentators feel that they could repeal the welfare state in a single blow by changing the interpretation of the commerce clause. The stakes are large, and this particular phase of this argument is now over 65 years old. The National Organization of Women (NOW) claims, "The Commerce Clause provides the foundation for laws prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. From 1937 to 1995, the [Supreme] Court's broad view of the Commerce Clause allowed the development of a truly national economy, with decent conditions for workers, and anti-discrimination and environmental protection laws that were models for the world. Now, in an era of the global economy and instant communications, five members of the Supreme Court and their supporters threaten to reverse those gains." The Future of Freedom Foundation counters that the commerce clause of the Constitution is "a clause in the U.S. Constitution that almost from the beginning, and particularly since the New Deal, has been used to justify a radical expansion of the power of the central government in the United States." < Back to main page
|
|
|||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
#