CHAPTER 4 CONGRESS AND ITS POWERS Outline I. Introduction A. The United States is a federalist system 1. The national government and the governments of each state coexist 2. These two share power B. The federal government has limited powers 1. Enumerated powers 2. The three branches of the federal government have specifically granted power under the Constitution C. Specific enumerated power is given to Congress in Article I, sec. 8; Congress can: 1. Lay and collect taxes 2. Provide for the defense of the country 3. Borrow money for the country 4. Regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states 5. Regulate immigration and bankruptcy 6. Establish post offices 7. Control the issuance of patents and copyrights 8. Declare war 9. Pass laws to govern Washington D.C. and federal military bases D. In addition to specific powers granted to Congress, the Necessary and Proper Clause extends these powers so that the enumerated powers can be carried out 1. This clause was not debated during the Constitutional Convention, but was a major issue during the ratification process that followed a. Opponents saw this clause as a way to endlessly expand the specific enumerated powers given to Congress in Article I b. Defenders of this clause declare it harmless, claiming that without it there would be no way for Congress to implement the enumerated powers 2. If Congress has an objective that falls within a specific enumerated power, Congress may use any means that is rationally related to the objective being sought so long as it is not constitutionally forbidden 3. The Necessary and Proper Clause says: Congress shall “[m]ake all Laws which shall be Necessary and Proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States . .” E. Other parts of the Constitution provide additional grants of power to Congress, such as 1. Article III, sec. 2 gives Congress the power to control the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and establish all lower federal courts 2. Article IV, sec. 3 gives Congress power over U.S. territories and federal property 3. Various amendments give Congress some power, i.e., sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact supporting legislation II. The Commerce Clause A. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) was the first major case to interpret the Commerce Clause and congressional power to regulate in that area 1. This case contains an interpretation of the broad, sweeping powers of Congress 2. Justice Marshall wrote the opinion and said that Congress can legislate with respect to all “commerce which concerns more States than one”; also, Justice Marshall 20 Congress and Its Powers 21 noted that “commerce” included not only the buying and selling but also all “commercial intercourse” a. Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce includes the ability to affect matters occurring within a state, so long as the activity has some commercial connection with another state b. However, the regulation of a commercial enterprise that is confined to one state may be considered reserved for the state in which the commercial endeavor takes place 3. No area of interstate commerce is reserved for state control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution does not act as a limit on the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce B. In Mayor of the City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), the Court followed Gibbons, in which Marshall defined commerce power broadly, but since Gibbons did not say that Congress’ regulatory power was exclusive, that question was left for the Court to decide here 1. Miln focused on the conflict between Congress’ commerce power and the Tenth Amendment 2. New York won in this case, as the Court held that the state has a right to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and that was what the law in question did 3. This holding led to some confusion and set up a conflict that the Court resolved in the next case C. Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 200 (1851): This case involved a Pennsylvania statute that required that all riverboats must have a pilot in order to dock in one of the state’s ports; failure to do so resulted in payment of a fee 1. Cooley arrived without a pilot at the Port of Philadelphia and the Board of Wardens sued him to recover the fee due under the statute 2. The magistrate ruled for the Board and ordered Cooley to pay; Cooley appealed 3. Issue: Did the commercial power granted to Congress deprive the states of the power to regulate in this area? a. The Court held that the power granted to Congress did not expressly exclude state regulation, but the Court went on to discuss whether the Constitution ought to be interpreted to give Congress this exclusive power b. The Court did not give a clear answer in this discussion and left the door open for future cases D. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918): 1. The Court has taken a more negative view of congressional interference with the employer-employee relationship 2. The Court was unwilling in this case to allow congressional legislation that interfered with the free-market system 3. The Court voted 5–4 to strike down a federal statute that prohibited the interstate transportation of articles produced by companies that employed young children 4. The Court said the goods being shipped were in and of themselves harmless and it was the child labor that was the evil; the employment of children was not directly related to interstate commerce and Congress could not use its power to regulate interstate commerce to get at the evil of child labor 5. Justice Holmes dissented and this is perhaps the more important part of this case in light of later legislation to eradicate child labor a. The dissent stated that so long as the congressional regulation falls with the power specifically given to Congress, the fact that it has a collateral effect upon local activities otherwise left to the state does not render the statute unconstitutional b. Justice Holmes also rejected the Tenth Amendment as a limitation on federal authority and said that so long as the congressional action technically comes from an enumerated power, it is valid no matter how substantially it impairs state regulation c. This restrictive view of the Tenth Amendment later became the majority view that exists to the present 22 Chapter 4 E. U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941), expressly overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart 1. In this case the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set minimum wages and maximum hours for employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce a. The statute prohibited shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by employees working more than the maximum hours or who were not paid the minimum wage b. The statute also made it a federal crime to employ workers in the production of goods for interstate commerce at other than the prescribed rates or for the hours c. The Court upheld the direct ban in interstate shipments by saying “[t]he power of Congress over interstate commerce [can] neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power . The [Tenth Amendment] states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered” d. The Court held that the Tenth Amendment would no longer act as an independent limitation on congressional authority over interstate commerce e. As a result of Darby, Congress is completely free to impose whatever conditions it deems necessary upon the privilege of engaging in an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, so long as the conditions do not violate another constitutional prohibition f. The Court also held that Congress’ motive for passing such legislation is not relevant to the discussion of this congressional power g. The Court also made it clear that making a violation of the act a crime was rationally related to the ends the federal government was attempting to achieve through this statute F. U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), demonstrates that some limits still exist on Congress’ Commerce Clause powers 1. This was the first case in 60 years where the Court invalidated a federal statute on the grounds that it was beyond Congress’ commerce power 2. The case involved the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, which made it a federal crime for individuals to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone 3. Congress based its power to enact and enforce this statute on the Commerce Clause, but there was no finding that the activity being regulated affected commerce, and it banned possession of all guns, even ones that had never traveled in or affected interstate commerce 4. The Court struck this statute down and restated that it is not enough to just affect interstate commerce—the activity must substantially affect interstate commerce 5. The Court further held that the possession of a gun in a school zone had not been demonstrated to substantially affect commerce a. First, the activity being regulated was not a commercial activity b. The government’s argument that the affect on commerce came from the fact that these guns could be used to commit a crime and crime has a negative impact on commerce was not persuasive enough to convince the Court that this was a substantial impact c. To do as the government argued would be to convert Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the type that was reserved for the states G.