Best Buy 2019 http://s2.q4cdn.com/785564492/files/doc_financials/2019/Annual/Annual-Report.pdf Dollar General 2018 https://investor.dollargeneral.com/download/companies/dollargeneral/Annual%20Reports/DG_2018_Annual_Report.pdf You select a 3rd company
FAST ANSWERS_PHD
Commerceclauseanditsimpactsonbusinessactivities.edited.docx1
COMMERCE CLAUSE AND ITS IMPACTS ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 3
Commerce Clause and Its Impacts on Business Activities
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Commerce Clause and Its Impacts on Business Activities
According to the U.S. constitution's article 1, section 8, clause 3, the U.S. Congress has the power to regulate commerce in states, foreign countries, and Indian tribes. This is what is referred to as the commerce clause. In most cases, the Indian Congress has always utilized and pulled out this clause to justify how the legislature uses power for state activities and what citizens do. With such an argument, there have been controversies regarding the power balance in the federal and state governments. Over the years, many business persons and interested parties have regarded the commercial clause as a means to grant the U.S. Congress more authority and put restrictions on states' regulatory powers (Barnett, 2002). The bible is the foundation of the rule of law, and the civil government is founded on scriptures that establish the rights and freedom of Americans (Isaiah 33:22). Generally, the commerce clause is essential in addressing issues to help genuine nations facing commercial issues. Moreover, it is useful in helping out states that cannot address issues due to the presence of commerce and transport activities between states.
The commerce clause also argues that Congress and the state have powers to regulate commerce; therefore, they can freely enact commerce regulations based on their requirements and expectations. The issue arises if the state and federal laws conflict because the clause allows federal laws to triumph over state laws. Such a clause is applicable in employment regulations because enaction of government laws and regulations is the work of the state and federal governments. As it is, employment is one of the major factors affecting commerce in America and the world in general.
Another key aspect of the commerce clause is that Congress and the states play a vital role in regulating commerce; however, this is only applicable in areas in that Congress and states are given an exclusive mandate to regulate commerce. Therefore, states have the power to regulate commerce within their borders, while the federal government has the power to regulate commerce between these states. In most cases, such power overlap leads to conflicts between states and the federal government; thus, it becomes the duty and power of the U.S. courts to offer a ruling on the regulation that wins (Epstein, 1995). For instance, interstate or inter-border transportations require individual states to regulate the speeds at which the vehicles can run and the vehicles' registration. However, it's the power of the federal government to regulate interstate travel for commercial vehicles. Therefore, the commerce clause greatly restricts how states regulate commerce while allowing the U.S. Congress and states to carry out their authority.
There have been many cases revolving around the commerce clause; including the Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. the United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); and United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) cases.
i. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824): under this case, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the commerce clause allowing Congress to regulate navigation between states.
ii. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942): in this case, the ruling broadly interpreted the commerce clause by recognizing the importance of having a dynamic economy because local activities impact interstate economic activities.
iii. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. the United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964): in this case, the commerce clause was used to interpret why the Heart of Atlanta Motel declined the acceptance of people of color. The clause provides that such refusal is a violation of Civil rights. Hence, Congress had the authority to regulate the power of motels since its business served state travelers, meaning it should not decline to service its consumers regardless of their race.
iv. United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995): in this case, Alfonso had carried a firearm in school. According to the commerce clause, the federal government had no power to regulate firearms in local schools; however, the government believed that carrying firearms in schools could trigger violence which could disrupt the U.S. economy. The case had back and forth between the government and the state, making it challenging to know what national and local authorities are.
In conclusion, the commerce clause permits the federal government, Congress, and states to regulate activities that impact each level of the government. What is clear is that the federal government only regulates activities that are economical. The state mostly regulates activities that are local and between states.
References
Barnett, R. E. (2002). New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause. Ark. L. Rev., 55, 847.
Epstein, R. A. (1995). Constitutional Faith and the Commerce Clause. Notre Dame L. Rev., 71, 167.
Thimmesch, A. B. (2019). The Unified Dormant Commerce Clause. Temp. L. Rev., 92, 331.
