Mark Killenbeck on the History of the Commerce Clause

Mark Killenbeck, author of several excellent legal histories, including one on M’Culloch v. Maryland and another on the Tenth Amendment, has posted his short history of the Interstate Commerce Clause, “A Prudent Regard to Our Own Good? The Commerce Clause, in Nation and States.”

Here is the abstract:

This lecture was delivered on May 23, 2012, as part of the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual Leon Silverman Lecture Series. My goal was to discern what key founders envisioned when they crafted and approved the Commerce Clause and explore how it has been interpreted and applied by the Court. I take as my starting point themes struck by James Madison in his Vices of the Political system of the U. States, in which he noted a “want of concert in matters where the common interest requires it,” a flaw “strongly illustrated in the state of our commercial affairs,” to the point that “the national dignity, interest, and revenue [have] suffered from this cause.” Madison’s lament was not, however, about the need to guard against an overbearing federal government. Rather, he was concerned about the corrosive effects of a “a mistaken confidence” in “the justice, the good faith, the honor, the sound policy, of . . . several legislative assemblies” whose actions were marked by “caprice, jealousy, and diversity of opinions.” Madison also counseled against excessive reliance on interpretations grounded solely in the drafting and ratification debates, speaking of the need to “liquidate and ascertain” meaning over time, recognizing, as did Chief Justice John Marshall, that the Constitution was “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” A close and careful reading of both Madison and Marshall – in particular, Marshall’s opinion for the Court in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) – suggests, accordingly, that sharp departures from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause occurred long before Wickard v. Filburn (1942), and that there is substantial support for an expansive reading of the nature and scope of the commerce power in the words and intentions of the founders.

 

NYTs Room for Debate: Amending the Constitution?

Interesting discussion on various proposals to amend the Constitution. Jenny Martinez would restore the original understanding of the Treaty power, so that treaties would actually be laws.

Randy Barnett, the leading scholarly figure seeking limitations on the commerce clause, would eliminate the Indian Commerce Clause. Not sure why. Wonder what would happen then….

Tenth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to SORNA (Underlying Major Crimes Act Conviction)

Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Yelloweagle.

An excerpt:

Alden Yelloweagle, the appellant here, was previously convicted of a federal sex offense. When he failed to register as required, he was indicted by federal authorities under the enforcement provision. Mr. Yelloweagle moved to dismiss the indictment for various reasons. Two of the reasons he offered are relevant here. First, he contended that no provision of the Constitution authorizes Congress to require all sex offenders to register. Accordingly, Mr. Yelloweagle
argued, he could not be punished for failing to comply with the requirement. Second, even if the registration requirement was valid, Mr. Yelloweagle contended that the criminal enforcement provision also lacked a jurisdictional
basis and therefore was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.

In his opening brief on appeal, Mr. Yelloweagle makes no mention of the first argument regarding the registration requirement; he focuses only on the claim that Congress lacks the power to criminalize the failure to register under the
enforcement provision. The government argues that this tactical shift dooms Mr. Yelloweagle’s appeal, for if the registration requirement is presumed to be constitutional, then the criminal provision is valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18. We agree.

Update on Challenge to Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act

Northville Downs’ opening brief before the Sixth Circuit in its challenge to the constitutionality of the Michigan’s Proposal E, barring additional, non-Indian gaming facilities in Michigan absent a state-wide referendum is here — Northville Downs Appellant Brief

In late February, the Eastern District of Michigan (Cohn, J.) rejected a constitutional challenge to Michigan Const. art. IV, section 41, otherwise known as Proposal E, and the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act. Here are the pleadings in Northville Downs v. Granholm.

northville-downs-complaint

state-motion-to-dismiss

mgm-motion-to-dismiss

northville-response-to-motion-to-dismiss [response begins around page 27, the rest is an amended complaint]

state-reply-brief

mgm-reply-brief

northville-downs-dct-opinion

Judge Cohn Rejects Challenge to Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act

The Eastern District of Michigan rejected a constitutional challenge to Michigan Const. art. IV, section 41, otherwise known as Proposal E, and the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act. Here are the pleadings in Northville Downs v. Granholm.

northville-downs-complaint

state-motion-to-dismiss

mgm-motion-to-dismiss

northville-response-to-motion-to-dismiss [response begins around page 27, the rest is an amended complaint]

state-reply-brief

mgm-reply-brief

northville-downs-dct-opinion

Adam Walsh Act Declared Unconstitutional

The district court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed an indictment under the Adam Walsh Act because Congress was unauthorized to enact the statute under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case is United States v. Powers. Doubtful it would apply to Indian Country, but interesting nonetheless.

Update — Dec. 17, 2008 — This case, like one or two others, is likely an aberration. It is far more likely than not that the Adam Walsh Act is constitutional. For more information, see this website.

powers-motion-to-dismiss-indictment

us-response-to-powers-motion

us-v-powers-dct-opinion