Constitution Clauses: Critical Enablers Of Our Rights

The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, has played a critical role in expanding national power. By granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Native American tribes, this clause has enabled the federal government to exert influence over a diverse range of economic activities. Over time, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has evolved, allowing Congress to pass legislation impacting not only trade but also civil rights, the environment, and other aspects of daily life. The Supreme Court's broad interpretation of this clause has been pivotal in expanding federal authority, demonstrating how a single clause within a constitution can have far-reaching implications for the distribution of power and the scope of governmental responsibilities.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History

$31.04 $59.99

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$143.59 $180

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$245.32 $359

The Commerce Clause

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly heard cases on Congress's power to regulate commerce, particularly during the 1930s. This led to a marked evolution in the Court's jurisprudence on the interstate Commerce Clause. Starting in 1937, following the end of the Lochner era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited.

However, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by returning to a more conservative interpretation. In this case, the Court held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, outlined in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, stipulates that states must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". This clause is designed to prevent conflicts between states and ensure the consistency of judgements across the nation.

For instance, without this clause, an individual could seek to re-litigate an issue in another state if they received an unfavourable judgement in their original case. This would result in differing judgements across states, causing competition and disharmony. The Full Faith and Credit Clause prevents this by requiring courts to follow the judgements made on the same issue in another state, under the doctrines of res judicata and issue preclusion.

However, there are exceptions to this clause. For example, a court in New York may disregard a judgement from a California court if the defendant was not properly served. Additionally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state if they conflict with its own public policy.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to various cases, including those involving orders of protection and child support. It has also played a role in the recognition of common-law marriages in divorce cases, although its application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships remains unresolved.

Comity Clause

The Comity Clause, also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause, is outlined in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. The clause was intended to unify a collection of independent sovereign states into one nation. It states that:

> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

In essence, the Comity Clause prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner, ensuring that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their state of residence. This clause has been interpreted to include various rights, such as the right to interstate travel, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Comity Clause has been a subject of discussion among notable figures in US history, including James Madison, who referenced a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation. In the Corfield case, Justice Bushrod Washington interpreted the scope of the rights protected by the clause, including the right to travel through and reside in states, the right to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, the right of access to the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, and an exemption from higher taxes than state residents pay.

The Comity Clause has also been addressed in several court cases, including Magill v. Brown, where Justice Henry Baldwin supported the interpretation of Justices Washington and Baldwin, which later became the settled doctrine of the US Supreme Court after the Civil War. In 1857, the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the Supreme Court involved the Comity Clause, with Chief Justice Taney affirming the rights mentioned by Justice Washington and adding the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Explore related products

Great Cases in Constitutional Law

$44 $47

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment

$29.99

Fighting Foreclosure: The Blaisdell Case, the Contract Clause, and the Great Depression (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$17.44 $29.99

Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause (Routledge Research in Constitutional Law)

$55.16 $72.99

The Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause

$9.99 $9.99

Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, reaffirms the principles of federalism and reinforces the notion of the Federal Government maintaining only limited, enumerated powers. The amendment states that:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment is similar to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which states that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. The Tenth Amendment was originally proposed by Thomas Burke, a strong supporter of states' rights in the Continental Congress, to ensure clarity regarding the differences in state and federal power.

The Tenth Amendment has been invoked in several Supreme Court decisions to determine if the federal government operated within or exceeded its authority. For example, in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr. (1995), the Tenth Amendment was used to determine that federal laws establishing "gun-free zones" on public school campuses were unconstitutional, as the Constitution did not authorise them.

The Tenth Amendment has been interpreted as a clarification of the federal government's limited powers, emphasising that a government decision should be investigated as a potential overreach of its power rather than an infringement of civil liberties. Some legal scholars have classified the amendment as a tautology, stating that it affirms the federal government does not have any rights that it does not have.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause is the clause in the US Constitution's First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear, but historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. The Establishment Clause is often at the centre of debates surrounding religion in schools.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause has changed over time, fluctuating between separationist and accommodationist views. The Court has employed a variety of analyses to determine whether a given law violates the Establishment Clause, depending on the type of government support being challenged.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court set forth a three-part test to determine whether government action regarding religion is constitutional. Firstly, the action must have a secular legislative purpose. Secondly, its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion. Thirdly, it must not foster excessive entanglement between the government and religion.

However, in American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019), the Court declined to apply the Lemon test, and by 2022, it was said to have abandoned that approach. The Court has not expressly overruled the Lemon test, but questions remain about how courts will apply these rulings in the future.

Frequently asked questions