Champion v. Ames[lotterycase] (1903): Commerce

t In 1895, congress passed legislation to prohibit lotterytickets from interstate or foreign commerce. Is selling of lottery tickets subject to regulation under commerce clause? Does the power to regulate commerce include the authority to prohibit it? May congress exercise a national “police power” to protect citizens from immoral transactions, or is that responsibility reserved to the states?

n Majority: HARLAN: congress can PROHIBIT national and interstate traffic of lotterytickets (commerce) even if its motivation – such as morality – competed with state policing power. Each state has to evaluate “evil” (of lottery) on its own, and should not be polluted by other states. 10^th A. not violated b/c the ability to have lottery within the state is not prohibited.

n Dissent: FULLER, BREWER, SHIRAS, PECKHAM: Restraints and burdens on persons and property in consideration and promotion “public health, good order and prosperity” is a power originally belonging to the States. This decision “in effect breaks down all the difference between that which is, and that which is not, an article of commerce… a long step in erasing state lines in creation of a centralized Gov.

n The dissent shows amazing foresight, the commerce clause will later be stretched for other moral policing, such as Civil Rights regulations.

Swift & Co. v. US(1905): Commerce, “Current of Commerce”

t There was a Sherman Anti-trust injunction against a meat packing plant for restraint of trade. The cattle apparently came to rest within the same state.

n Majority: HOLMES: The cattle were being sent from a place in the state, with the expectation that they will end their transit after a purchase in another state… stopping for a time to find a buyer. This practice is “constantly recurring course, the current thus existing is a current thus existing is a CURRENT of commerce among the states, and the purchase of cattle is a part and incident of such commerce.” Animal stockyards can be regulated because they are in the STREAM OF COMMERCE that congress could regulate

The Shreveport Rate Case (1914): Commerce, “close and substantial relation”

t The Interstate CommerceCommittee directed the railway to equalize rates between cities, both between and within states

n Majority: HUGHES: “authority extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operation in all matters having such a CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL relation to interstate traffic, tot he efficiency of the interstate service… but should not be used to “cripple, retard, or destroy it”. Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions are so related that the government of one involves control of the other, Congress and not the State is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 990