Posted: September 10th, 2023

Congress has the power to control and regulate commerce between the United States and foreign nations

Congress has the power to control and regulate commerce between the United States and foreign nations, trade between states and trade with lndian Tribes. The congress regulates the foreign and interstate commerce with the interest of managing and handling politics and controversies that arise. The power to regulate interstate commerce has given Congress the power and authority over everything that crosses state lines. Equally important, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the positive authority and further gives implied prohibition of state laws and regulations that discriminate and interfere with interstate commerce. The commerce clause is viewed as the foundation of the United States government to have regulatory power over its subjects. The purpose of the clause was to enhance regulation of trade, enhances government exclusivity and supremacy. The question and the issue of interstate commerce regulation by the can be evaluated and answered through evaluation of various cases such as the Gibbons v. Ogden, Stafford v. Wallace and the United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
Gibbons v. Ogden case To begin with, the Gibbons v.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Gibbons-v-Ogden 33%
Gibbons v. Ogden case To begin with, the Gibbons v. Ogden case displays and demonstrate the constitutional foundations of Congress Power over interstate commerce. The case was a landmark case that established the power of the federal government to control interstate commerce. lnitially, Robert Fulton and Robert Livingstone were given a monopoly over all navigations routes in New York By the state of New York. The two businessmen used the franchise to sell other businessmen the rights to operate in other routes. Gibbons and Ogden bought the permission to operate their ships between New York and Elizabethtown from Livingstone and Fulton. Later, Gibbons went against the agreement they had with Ogden and operated his two ships on the same route and Gibbons justified his action from a separate federal license he had gotten.
Consequently, Ogden went to the New York court to seek an injunction stopping Gibbons from operating in the route. Gibson appealed the decision arguing that federal laws were supreme and above the state laws and thus they should supersede state laws as Congress had the right to control interstate commerce. On the other hand, Ogden state and federal laws could coincide arguing that Congress had only power to regulate interstate commerce at the borderline of two states. Other commerce operations within the state were under the control of the state. On the other hand, the Supreme Court argued that states were not in a position to interfere with the power of Congress in regulating commerce. The court ruled in favor of Gibbons and further dismantled the navigation monopoly control.
The case played a key role in overemphasizing the mandate of the Congress control of interstate commerce over the state laws. The case expanded the power and authority of the federal government in having a say over interstate operations. Therefore, most of the business is controlled by the United States since that was the essence of enacting the Commerce Clause.
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. The American Sugar Refining Company (America) and Knight Co bought four refineries in Philadelphia placing it in a position to have a monopoly on sugar refining.
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924103062851/cu31924103062851_djvu.txt 31%
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. The American Sugar Refining Company (America) and Knight Co bought four refineries in Philadelphia placing it in a position to have a monopoly on sugar refining. ln this respect, the federal government sued the American Sugar Refining Co.
for engaging in a combination in restraint of trade.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/156/1 50%
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924103062851/cu31924103062851_djvu.txt 50%
https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h760.html 50%
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/combination%20in%20restraint%20of%20trade 50%
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1 50%
https://essays.homeworkacetutors.com/write-my-essay/businessdictionary.com/definition/restraint-of-trade.html 50%
for engaging in a combination in restraint of trade. The issue of contention or the rule of law up for determination was the implementation of the commerce power cannot destroy the police power retained by the state. The government argued by the companies entering into a contract to buy sugar refineries was a ploy to restrain trade and commerce in various states.
The court held that business activities such as manufacturing, refining are not the same as interstate commerce and thus the companies were not in violation of the Act. Therefore, the court brought a distinction between commerce and manufacturing thus overturning the case.
The ruling, in this case, was significant as it made the manufacturers think that they were immune from antitrust legislation leading more organizations to consolidate. The monopolies were reinforced and proceeded to be formed. However, the ruling was significant in drawing the line on the mandate and responsibilities of Congress in relation to the commerce clause.
Stafford v. Wallace Finally, the Stafford V. Wallace case is of great significance in understanding the interstate commerce clause.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EIh9dXKStTsC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=Stafford+v+Wallace+Finally+the+Stafford+V+Wallace+case+is+of+great+significance+in+understanding+the+interstate+commerce+clause&source=bl&ots=jqKqEHHeCY&sig=ACfU3U1_PF0JBeW7ie_i_fMo7yw85xO05g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzst-U1aXiAhXZF7kGHd3PBQsQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ 30%
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1331257?seq=1 30%
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/258us495 30%
https://books.google.com/books?id=y4b6z1zJFoQC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Stafford+v+Wallace+Finally+the+Stafford+V+Wallace+case+is+of+great+significance+in+understanding+the+interstate+commerce+clause&source=bl&ots=uwj2zYQgXh&sig=ACfU3U3oZ-MAaAQNVgSQgrVvACW3L4M45w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzst-U1aXiAhXZF7kGHd3PBQsQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ 30%
Stafford v. Wallace Finally, the Stafford V. Wallace case is of great significance in understanding the interstate commerce clause. ln this case, the Congress was involved in enacting the Packers and Stockyard Act so as to control activities of meat packers that were deemed to be deceptive, unfair, discriminatory and further enhanced the creation of monopolies. Stafford requested an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the Act. His application was denied prompting him to seek the interpretation by the Supreme Court.
The court rejected the argument on the basis that the Act was part of the intrastate commerce under Congress.
Additionally, the court argued that Congress did not have to wait scrupulous economic monopolies had been formed to regulate the industries.
https://quizlet.com/81112409/consitutional-law-cards-flash-cards/ 40%
Additionally, the court argued that Congress did not have to wait scrupulous economic monopolies had been formed to regulate the industries.
Therefore, the business done by the stockyards was a vital part of interstate commerce and thus subject to the federal government.
https://quizlet.com/81112409/consitutional-law-cards-flash-cards/ 40%
Therefore, the business done by the stockyards was a vital part of interstate commerce and thus subject to the federal government.
The ruling gave a more expansive view of the interstate commerce authority. The ruling showed that the interstate commerce covered other types of businesses that despite them being done within the state they would have effects of the federal government in the future.
ln conclusion, the different court rulings based on the lnterstate Commerce power by Congress have various operations in law. ln this respect, the Gibbon v. Ogden case showed that federal laws were more powerful than state law in regard to regulating interstate business operations. Consequently, United States v. E. C. Knight Co. differentiated the roles and responsibilities played by the Congress in relation to the commerce clause. ln this case, the ruling showed that business and commercial activities were different from interstate commerce. Finally, Stafford v. Wallace showed that the operation of the lnterstate Clause was far-reaching and covered activities that have effects on intrastate commerce.

Order | Check Discount