8.2.3

Evaluate the major debates that occurred during the development of the Constitution and their ultimate resolutions in such areas as shared power among institutions, divided state-federal power, slavery, the rights of individuals and states (later addressed by the addition of the Bill of Rights), and the status of American Indian nations under the commerce clause.
             Debates, which were more common then, all decided the United States future. There were many of them during the development of the United States Constitution. Since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, courts have absolved certain types of speech from First Amendment protection. Political dissent has sparked some of the most brutal debates over constitutional rights.
             There was also a Constitutional Debate over the impeachment process that should take place if the president is not fit to do his job. James Madison, a delegate from the state of Virginia to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, provided a valuable record of their discussion in his Journal of the Federal Convention. James Madison opposed an impeachment trial by the Senate. Fifty-five delegates, everyone from each of the 13 original states except Rhode Island, participated in the convention.
             There were also many compromises. The most familiar one is the 3/5 Compromise. Before the Constitution, slaves didn’t count as a person. Congress realized that populations wouldn’t be as accurate and that land would run out quicker if there were more than accounted for. The agreement that they made was that slaves would count as 3/5 of a real person. So, if there was a population of 40,000 slaves in Alabama or one of the 13 colonies, they would only count 24,000 as real people. However, this did NOT give slaves the right to own any land or vote.
             Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 allows Congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes". While Congress has been granted the power and authority to regulate interstate commerce, the query of whether that power shall be widely or directly interpreted has differed as the Supreme Court's membership has changed.
             To regulate interstate commerce, a good example of this would be the Gibbons v. Ogden case. This case defined "interstate commerce" broadly. Congress cannot control activities which are private matters that are completely within a particular state and do not affect other states. However, the Court acknowledged that the deep streams of commerce penetrate into the interior of every state and Congress can manage interstate commerce wherever it exists, including within the territorial jurisdiction of the states.
             The Supreme Court also discovered Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce to be restricted, given by the Constitution and never to be utilized soundly by the States. The grant of this power to Congress in the Constitution has divested the states of the competence to regulate even where Congress has not mandated. The Court however accepted that States may exercise their police powers in pursuit of state interests, just as long this legislation is not pre-empted by federal legislation, supreme under the Supremacy Clause.
             State legislation simulates regulation of interstate commerce. The State may have dishonored the lethargic nature of the Commerce Clause, which by its simple presence in the Constitution grants exclusive authority over regulation to Congress. If the states do allow this to happen, If so, courts must strike down the state law.
             During the time of Dual Federalism, the Supreme Court noticed Congressional legislation with skepticism, and made confined, case by case judgments on whether Congress was regulating interstate commerce or practicing some other hidden agenda. McCulloch v. Maryland held that if the ends are legitimate and means are chosen which are plainly adapted to achieve those ends, the Court will not inquire into the degree of necessity. But in this Dual Federalist era, the Court consistently inquired into the necessity of various means. The Court even questioned whether Congress was actually pursuing stated legitimate ends or in reality engaging in a power not granted to them by the Constitution. For decades, the Court controlled legislation.


More Information:

   1.    http://class.lls.edu/~manheimk/cl1/commercex.htm
          This site describes the commerce clause.

    2.    http://federalist.freeservers.com/papers.html
          This site discusses the Federalist papers.

    3.    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interstatetax.htm
          This site gives information on the commerce clause.

   4.    http://class.lls.edu/~manheimk/cl1/dormant2x.htm
          This site gives information on the dormant commerce clause.