One of the largest conflicts between the federal government and the state governments is the complicated situation of commerce, and when it is labelled as interstate commerce or intrastate commerce. State legislatures are allowed to enact legislation regulating intrastate commerce, but only the federal legislature can enact laws that regulate interstate commerce. The issue arises when a law whose design regulates intrastate commerce, but inevitably affects interstate commerce. This is the situation in Parker v. Brown (1943), where California passed the California Agricultural Prorate Act of 1933. The act was designed to prevent agricultural surpluses that, uncontrolled, would destroy the market for that agricultural good. The act establishes
…show more content…
Inferior raisins, according to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and as such must be discarded because they are unfit for human consumption. 20 percent of the remaining raisins must be placed in a surplus pool, which at any time may be disposed of it need be. 50 percent of the total crop must be placed into a stabilization pool controlled by the Department of Agriculture of the State of California, and used to level the market. The remaining 30 percent of the raisins may be independently sold by the farmers if they purchase certificates at $2.50 per tonnage of raisins. The certificate is a form of regulation that, paired with the disposal of raisins in the stabilization and surplus pools, can balance the market for the dried fruit.
The intention of this legislation was to regulate commerce and control the fluctuating market in California; however, since a majority of the raisins produced in Raisin Proration Zone No.1, this law would indirectly regulate interstate commerce through the state of California. The United States Constitution bars the regulation of interstate commerce at the state level in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, leaving all authority of interstate commerce to the federal government. This should mandate that federal law preempts state law, and that the authority of interstate commerce is exclusive to the federal
Inferior raisins, according to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and as such must be discarded because they are unfit for human consumption. 20 percent of the remaining raisins must be placed in a surplus pool, which at any time may be disposed of it need be. 50 percent of the total crop must be placed into a stabilization pool controlled by the Department of Agriculture of the State of California, and used to level the market. The remaining 30 percent of the raisins may be independently sold by the farmers if they purchase certificates at $2.50 per tonnage of raisins. The certificate is a form of regulation that, paired with the disposal of raisins in the stabilization and surplus pools, can balance the market for the dried fruit.
The intention of this legislation was to regulate commerce and control the fluctuating market in California; however, since a majority of the raisins produced in Raisin Proration Zone No.1, this law would indirectly regulate interstate commerce through the state of California. The United States Constitution bars the regulation of interstate commerce at the state level in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, leaving all authority of interstate commerce to the federal government. This should mandate that federal law preempts state law, and that the authority of interstate commerce is exclusive to the federal