Analysis on the Concept Commerce Clause

¶ … Commerce Clause In the United States constitution, the Commerce Clause refers to the power allotted to the Congress to regulate the inter-states commerce, and under the Commerce Clause, the Congress can control excessive interstate commerce. The Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution gives the power to the Congress to regulate commerce of several states, foreign nations, and Indian tribes.

Typically, the Congress often uses the concept Commerce Clause to justify the legislative power over the states as well as the citizens leading to a controversy about the balance of power between the states and federal government. Objective of this paper is to explore the concept Commerce Clause. The paper also discusses the Supreme Court decision with regard to the case "New York Times v. Sullivan and the tort of defamation." Concept Commerce Clause "The U.S.

Constitution's Commerce Clause represents one of Congress's most important sources of legislative powers." (Rutkow, & Vernick, 2011 p 750). Typically, the Commerce Clause vests a broad authority on Congress to address a wide range of legislative matters. Starting from 1905, the Supreme Court has used the Commerce Clause concept to regulate navigation among states.

For example, the Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause to stop the price fixing in Illinois, the Chicago meat industry where the Supreme Court ruled that the "Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act." (Cornell University Law School, 2015 p 1). The Supreme Court Ruling has revealed that a business at a local level can be referred as commerce because it involves movement of goods and services among states. Between 1937 and 1995, the U.S.

Supreme Court developed a wide and expansive view of the concept Commerce Clause. During this period, no federal laws was able to violate the Congress's commerce power. In 1964, the federal government passed the Civil Right Act to prohibit discrimination and outlaw segregation against Africans-Americans, which was passed under the Commerce Clause to allow an Equal Protection.

However, the scope of Commerce Clause started to be narrow because of the Supreme Court invalidation of the federal law ("federal Gun-Free School Zones Act") (Rutkow, & Vernick, 2011 p 751) in favor of Commerce Clause under the United States v. Lopez. In the case, the defendant posed an argument that the federal government did not have the authority to control the firearms, however, the government claimed that controlling of firearm fell under the Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court rejected the Act by pointing out that only the Congress had the authority to regulate the interstate commerce and channel of commerce. (Rutkow, & Vernick, 2011). New York Times. v. Sullivan The case New York Times v. Sullivan was a Supreme Court landmark case in favor of right of press. Typically, the Court established that an actual malice should be met before a public official can refer a report as libel and defamation.

The Court supports the decision about the freedom of press, and New York Times had prevailed in the case based on the ruling of the Court. The court held that a State cannot award damages to an elected public official.