Intended to make the us a common market o supreme

Intended to make the US a common market
o Supreme court has greatly expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause
over the years
 Can regulate commerce that actually crossed state lines
(originally), commerce that involved instrumentalities of interstate
commerce such as rivers/railroads/telephone systems (originally),
and commerce that occurred entirely within the border of a
single state so long as the commercial activity had “any

appreciable effect” on interstate or foreign commerce (after
1930’s)
 States can pass commerce laws as long as they do not conflict
with any federal regulations already in place—sometimes causes
friction or businesses have to pass to regulations that are
inconsistent with one another
o Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
 Cali allows medicinal marijuana
 Question was whether the power vested in Congress includes
power to prohibit cultivation and use of marijuana
 Raich & Monson are treated with marijuana under
“Compassionate Use” act
 Monson cultivates her own- federal agents raided her home and
destroyed her plants then DEA said no
possessing/obtaining/manufacturing for personal medical use
 District courts agreed with DEA
 Ninth circuit reversed
 Attorney General appealed
 Raich & Monson say Congress exceeded their power
 Supreme court says they acted in their power
 This was verified by Wickard case
 Appellate court remanded and original decision was kept

 Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
 Congress was attempting to help farmers by keeping wheat prices
from falling too far by limiting production
 Filburn wanted to grow his wheat for himself, they said no
exceptions or aggregate effect would occur
 “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be
regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be
reached by congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on
interstate commerce”
o McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans (1980)
 Question was whether NOLA real estate firms had violated anti-
trust laws by entering into price fixing contracts
 Local law said no they’re fine
 Supreme court said no this is a federal case b/c significant
amounts of money lent by local banks to finance real estate come
from out of state banks and most of the mortgages taken by the
local banks were physically traded to them by financial institutions
in other states
