The Power to Regulate Commerce: Limits on Congressional Power (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (20 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised May 16, 2014 |
| Report Number |
RL32844 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Kenneth R. Thomas and Todd B. Tatelman, Legislative Attorneys |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Dec. 28, 2010 (19 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium June 17, 2005 (23 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution provides that the Congress shall have the\r power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The plain meaning of this language might\r indicate a limited power to regulate commercial trade between persons in one state and persons\r outside of that state. However, the Commerce Clause has never been construed quite so narrowly.\r Rather, the clause, along with the economy of the United States, has grown and become more\r complex. In addition, when Congress began to address national social problems, the Commerce\r Clause was often cited as the constitutional basis for such legislation. As a result, the Commerce\r Clause has become the constitutional basis for a significant portion of the laws passed by\r Congress over the last 50 years, and it currently represents one of the broadest bases for the\r exercise of congressional powers.\r An examination of the United States Code shows that more than 700 statutory provisions,\r covering a range of issues, are explicitly based on regulation of either "interstate" or "foreign"\r commerce. Over the last two decades, however, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez and\r United States v. Morrison held that a gun possession law and a law regarding sexual violence\r were, respectively, beyond Congress\'s authority to regulate commerce. The effect of these cases,\r however, has so far been relatively modest in scope. For instance, a later case, Gonzales v. Raich,\r confirmed the authority of Congress to regulate medical marijuana, suggesting that the effect of\r the prior cases will be limited. Yet, in the case of National Federation of Business v. Sebelius,\r considering a challenge to an individual mandate to buy health insurance, the Court found that the\r Commerce Clause did not provide authority for such mandate. In Sebelius, the Court limited the\r use of the Commerce Clause to instances where individuals have already chosen to engage in a\r commercial activity (although it did find that such mandate could be enforced under Congress\'s\r power to tax).
