Replies

Posted by Ken H to Drammach
On News/Activism 06/09/2005 12:37:12 PM CDT · 605 of 611

(My prior post:)The commerce clause, concerning regulating commerce "among the several states" was meant to encourage free trade, not prohibit commerce..

(KenH reply:) I'm sure James Madison would agree.

"Yet it is very certain that it [the power to regulate commerce among the several States] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government"

--James Madison

Madison wrote two letters in which he explained the intent of the Commerce Clause. He also explained the difference between the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the power to regulate commerce among the the several States.

Due to its length, I excerpted from his explanation of the power to regulate trade with foreign countries. The entire document can be read here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

18 Sept. 1828 Writings 9:316--40

1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.

2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named. [end of excerpt]

Now on to the States:

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829 Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.