FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162  
163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   >>   >|  
ence. The four dissenting Justices in the Lottery Case (decided in 1903) endorsed this view in the following words: "It is argued that the power to regulate commerce among the several States is the same as the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the Indian tribes. But is its scope the same? * * *, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and the power to regulate interstate commerce, are to be taken _diverso intuitu_, for the latter was intended to secure equality and freedom in commercial intercourse as between the States, not to permit the creation of impediments to such intercourse; while the former clothes Congress with that power over international commerce, pertaining to a sovereign nation in its intercourse with foreign nations, and subject, generally speaking, to no implied or reserved power in the States. The laws which would be necessary and proper in the one case, would not be necessary or proper in the other. * * * But that does not challenge the legislative power of a sovereign nation to exclude foreign persons or commodities, or place an embargo, perhaps not permanent, upon foreign ships or manufactures. * * * The same view must be taken as to commerce with Indian tribes. There is no reservation of police powers or any other to a foreign nation or to an Indian tribe, and the scope of the power is not the same as that over interstate commerce."[330] And twelve years later Chief Justice White, speaking for the Court, expressed the same view, as follows: "In the argument reference is made to decisions of this court dealing with the subject of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but the very postulate upon which the authority of Congress to absolutely prohibit foreign importations as expounded by the decisions of this court rests is the broad distinction which exists between the two powers and therefore the cases cited and many more which might be cited announcing the principles which they uphold have obviously no relation to the question in hand."[331] But dicta to the contrary are much more numerous and span a far longer period of time. Thus Chief Justice Taney wrote in 1847: "The power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Congress in the same clause, and by the same words, as the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is coextensive with it."[332] And nearly fifty years later Justice Field, speaking for the Court, s
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162  
163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
commerce
 

foreign

 

regulate

 

States

 

nations

 
Congress
 
Justice
 

Indian

 
intercourse
 

speaking


nation

 

interstate

 
proper
 

subject

 
sovereign
 

tribes

 
decisions
 
powers
 

postulate

 

importations


authority

 

argument

 

prohibit

 

reference

 

expounded

 

absolutely

 

dealing

 

distinction

 

exists

 

granted


period

 
clause
 

coextensive

 

longer

 

relation

 
uphold
 

announcing

 
principles
 

question

 
numerous

contrary
 

challenge

 
freedom
 
commercial
 

equality

 

secure

 
intended
 

permit

 
creation
 

clothes