Business law fundamentals and applications

Business Law

Describe the "Commercial Clause" in the United States Constitution and explain how its scope and meaning has been interpreted by the courts.

Referring "to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution," the Commercial Clause as the Cornell University Law School (2013) further observes empowers the Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." As far as the legislative power of Congress is concerned, the relevance of this particular Clause cannot be overstated. Indeed, based on how the Supreme Court has in the past interpreted this particular Clause, it is not only one of Congress' most important tools of authority but also a "limitation on the right of the states to regulate commerce within their borders" (Lawnix, 2013).

It is important to note that over time, the courts have on several occasions interpreted not only the scope but also the meaning of the commercial clause, with two such interpretations having taken place in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978). In the case of Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978), a statue had been successfully passes by Alaska in which case residents of Alaska were to receive preferential treatment (over non-residents) when it came to the hiring of those working in the gas or oil industries. In addition to finding this particular law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court as Lawnix (2013) observes held "that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from preferring its own residents in utilizing natural resources located within the state but bound for interstate commerce." On the other hand, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), it was in the opinion of the Supreme Court that the Commerce Clause provided Congress with the power to prohibit activities that could in one way or another affect interstate commerce (The Heritage Foundation, 2013). It should be noted that as it is pointed out in Lawnix (2013), there is no precise definition that has been given to the term "commerce" by the Constitution. It is on this basis as Lawnix (2013) observes that the Supreme Court enjoys significant flexibility when it comes to the determination of cases that involve the Commercial Clause.

2. Research and write a brief analysis of the Supreme Court's decision and reasoning in Pennzoil v. Texaco (1987) and the tort of interference with contract.