The word "commerce" itself is a source of controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word commerce just like the constitution does not define the word man when it comes to the requirements for qualifying to meet the requirement for running for office. Some beliefs that it refers simply to trade or exchanges while others claim that the founding fathers intended for the word commerce to mean commercial and social interactions between citizens of different states. Since there is no clear cut right answer for what commerce really means in terms of what the founding fathers wanted it to mean, the popular interpretation of the word "commerce" that I have seen in the case 's that we have studied so far to me means that commerce
…show more content…
Maryland was the first case where there was no express provision in the constitution that covers it. The argument that Marshall was making was that the argument is structural. The whole thing doesn 't make sense unless the whole picture is taken into account. You can infer it by the way that the constitution is set up. The argument made by Marshall was that the partial could and should not control the whole. Maryland cannot tax the federal bank because it is taxation without representation. This Segway’s and plays a prominent role in the validity of the commerce clause and the federal government power in the sense that if the federal government power could be established then it can help with future cases that might question the federal government power. The conclusion in the nutshell, was that the bank was valid because Everyone and every state are controlled by the federal government and represented the Congress even Maryland has representation in congress so they can tax everyone, but Maryland can 't tax the federal government because the federal government represents everyone and every state is not represented in Maryland. Maryland tax/legislation is uncalled for and discriminatory tax in the sense that it singled out the federal government to tear it down and …show more content…
McClung in 1964. Ollie’s Barbeque was a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama. Although most of Ollie’s customers were local and a state affair, the restaurant served food to people, which had previously crossed state lines. The court, in that case, applied a three-part question to determine if the laws fall into the condition to regulate interstate commerce. First questions were that does the law purpose or effect and discriminate against or excessively interfere with interstate commerce, second, does the commerce law/ interference in question require national or uniform regulation and finally does the state’s interest in regulating such commerce outweighed by that of the federal government laws or individual rights. Congress is not only operating on moral ground, but also commercially. The Supreme Court held and ruled that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants, as this was a burden on interstate
Maryland was the first case where there was no express provision in the constitution that covers it. The argument that Marshall was making was that the argument is structural. The whole thing doesn 't make sense unless the whole picture is taken into account. You can infer it by the way that the constitution is set up. The argument made by Marshall was that the partial could and should not control the whole. Maryland cannot tax the federal bank because it is taxation without representation. This Segway’s and plays a prominent role in the validity of the commerce clause and the federal government power in the sense that if the federal government power could be established then it can help with future cases that might question the federal government power. The conclusion in the nutshell, was that the bank was valid because Everyone and every state are controlled by the federal government and represented the Congress even Maryland has representation in congress so they can tax everyone, but Maryland can 't tax the federal government because the federal government represents everyone and every state is not represented in Maryland. Maryland tax/legislation is uncalled for and discriminatory tax in the sense that it singled out the federal government to tear it down and …show more content…
McClung in 1964. Ollie’s Barbeque was a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama. Although most of Ollie’s customers were local and a state affair, the restaurant served food to people, which had previously crossed state lines. The court, in that case, applied a three-part question to determine if the laws fall into the condition to regulate interstate commerce. First questions were that does the law purpose or effect and discriminate against or excessively interfere with interstate commerce, second, does the commerce law/ interference in question require national or uniform regulation and finally does the state’s interest in regulating such commerce outweighed by that of the federal government laws or individual rights. Congress is not only operating on moral ground, but also commercially. The Supreme Court held and ruled that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants, as this was a burden on interstate