Turn with me in your pocket Constitution to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Here you will find a sentence which many big government advocates have perverted to serve the slow creep of centralized power. This was never meant to be.
The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the limited power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”
Now, the Progressives have contorted the meaning of this power to support everything from National Healthcare (Obamacare), to regulation of monopolies, price-fixing, wage regulation, and many other unconstitutional federal activities. Why are these things unconstitutional? Well, because the Commerce Clause was written for one defined reason.
The only purpose was to give the Federal Government the adequate power to ensure that commerce between the States was not interrupted by tariffs, quotas, or other taxes. Therefore, this means that New York can’t place a tax on goods that comes from Massachusetts or New Jersey. To regulate means that the Federal Government has the power to prevent State Government’s from engaging in trade wars and preventing free trade. The root meaning of regulate, is to keep regular, not to control, mandate, or even become involved in the process.
The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the job to protect free trade by preventing State Government’s from pandering to special interests who would benefit from interstate protectionism. How interesting that unions, businesses, and others now use the Commerce Clause for the purpose of mandating that resources be diverted to their businesses.
No place in the Constitution is there power given to the Federal Government that would support the idea that the Founder’s intended for such massive expansion and ambiguity. And that’s the truth about the Commerce Clause.
The Constitution is defined and simple. Anyone can understand it, and that’s what the Founder’s wanted.
Remember, only 20 powers are given to the Federal Government (Article 1 Section 8). Take a minute and think about all the things that government now does, make a list, then read the Constitution and see if there is explicit power given for those programs and actions. Mark the ones where there is no Constitutional support. ...
Now, the Progressives have contorted the meaning of this power to support everything from National Healthcare (Obamacare), to regulation of monopolies, price-fixing, wage regulation, and many other unconstitutional federal activities.
Other unconstitutional federal activities such as their War On Drugs.
Actually, it was to make sure the States got a share of the taxes from points of entry.
A direct consequence of this power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is that of establishing ports; or such places of entry, lading, and unlading, as may be most convenient for the merchant on the one hand, and for the easy and effectual collection of the revenue from customs, on the other.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
It was decided by this court in the case of Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, that the term 'imports' as used in that clause of the constitution which declares that 'no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,' does not refer to articles carried from one state into another, but only to articles imported from foreign countries into the United States.
Brown vs Houston
It could also be used as a tool for Constitutional compliance by allowing the federal government the ability to sanction States by routing traffic away from points of entry as well, thus denying them 'income'.