1. For most of the last century the Supreme Court had a relatively broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. To be sure, between 1937 and 1995, the Court affirmed every law that was brought before it under a Commerce Clause challenge. The Court’s interpretation during that time relied on three elements, namely Congress could regulate any activity if it: uses the channels of interstate commerce, involved a person or thing in interstate commerce or an instrumentality of interstate commerce, or substantially affected interstate commerce (Thomas). With its 1995 ruling in the United States v. Lopez case, however, the Court began to narrow the scope of Commerce Cause regulatory power. In Lopez, the Court held that the law in question, which attempted to regulate the possession of guns near schools, Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause because there was no evidence that guns were a thing in interstate commerce or that they substantially affected interstate comer. In short, the Court’s meaning was that simply because Congress says something is part of or affected interstate commerce does not make it necessarily so. The Court further supported this point five years later in the case United State v. Morrison. In Morrison, the Court found the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional arguing on one point that despite extensive research showing how violence against women affected interstate commerce. According to the Court, the research did not prove violence against women and an economic activity and therefore Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause. What those two ruling said is that after 1995, Congress only had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate an “economic activity” in interstate commerce.
2. Under Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a president’s inherent power varies according to whether or not there is support from Congress. At one end, if the president is acting with express or implied authority from Congress agree on an issue, the presidential power is strongest. At the other end, if the president is acting in defiance of Congress on an issue, the president power is at its weakest. In the middle, if the president is acting on an issue where Congress is silent, then presidential power is somewhat in the middle. This means that he has great power if they are based on his independent authority. However, if it relies on an area where he has concurrent authority with Congress; then he will have great power as long as Congress stays silent. If they don’t stay silent then it will depend on whether they agree or not.
Works Cited
Thomas, K.R. (2014). The power to regulate commerce: Limits on congressional power. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32844.pdf
