The name “Commerce Clause” refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” At the time the Constitution was written, this was primarily interpreted to mean that the federal government had the power to regulate trade between states and between the US and other countries, while while each individual state could regulate trade within its borders.
Similarly, the word “commerce” was initially understood to refer to the transport of goods between the states for the purpose of sale. However, in 1894, the Supreme Court ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden that the Commerce Clause gave Congress to regulate, not just goods for sale, but any sort of “commercial intercourse” between states, including navigation routes and means of transport.Later cases expanded the definition of “commerce” to include intrastate activities that affected interstate commerce, since even local economic activities could have effects on markets in other states.
The Commerce Clause once again came into play during the civil rights movements of the 1960s. In 70 years between the decision in Gibbons v. Ogden and the main legislative activities of the era, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified, thus prohibiting the government from “mak[ing] or enforc[ing] any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” and guaranteeing all US citizens “equal protection of the laws.” In other words, following the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the government couldn’t discriminate against any of its citizens, including on the basis of race. However, the Fourteenth Amendment was powerless to regulate how private businesses and individuals behaved toward each other, when the government was not involved.
This all changed with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which Congress first attempted to ban racial discrimination between two private parties. Title II of the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants, gas stations, movie theaters, or other private business catering to the public at large. But the Fourteenth Amendment was not expansive enough to justify these prohibitions. When Title II got challenged before the Supreme Court, the government defended itself by claiming power under the Commerce Clause to regulate private behavior in such places. In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S. (1964), the government argued that it could prohibit racial discrimination in hotels because they often cater o out-of-state travelers and therefore affect interstate commerce. Similarly, in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), the government argued that it could prohibit racial discrimination in a restaurant because many of the raw ingredients used were sourced from out of state, which in turn implicated interstate commerce. The Supreme Court upheld both of the arguments, thus giving judicial approval to the argument that the Commerce Clause could be used to ban racial discrimination in public facilities, regardless of whether they were privately owned.
Sources:
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Enduring and Revolutionary
Clause 3. Commerce Power
Gibbons v. Ogden (1894)
The commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) in the United States Constitution gives the federal government the ability "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Although state governments have criticized the clause on several occasions—particularly due to their view that it gives the federal government too much power over state economies—the clause had the unintended benefit of outlawing racial discrimination in restaurants and other public facilities.
During the Civil Rights era, the commerce clause protected African American patrons from being banned from establishments by racist business owners. The United States Supreme Court helped secure the ability of the federal government to implement the commerce clause in states that had Jim Crow laws.
Without the commerce clause, state governments that practiced institutional racism could allow and protect white business owners in targeting African American customers.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/commerce-clause
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
No comments:
Post a Comment