Talk:Dormant Commerce Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dormant Commerce Clause is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been assessed as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Comments

This article needs serious help. Perhaps a law student could tackle it. Agree with comments concering Congress' desire. Can Congress desire something? Legislators could. Congress acts or implements. Congress cannot feel because I was corrected first-year law school for same mistake. I will try to rewrite this. How does dormant commerce clause fit into general commerce clause discussion. Perhaps this should just be noted in the main article. …

Article should state: When was this doctrine first inferred by the Supreme Court? When was it first called this? Tempshill 21:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Why does the article state that the DCC "evolved out of Congress' desire to federally regulate commerce by using powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution"? I don't see what Congress' desire has to do with it. It is a Court-created and Court-recognized doctrine interpreting the Constitution's grant of power to Congress. If the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, it follows that the Constitution reflects intent NOT to grant that power to other (state and local) governments. The prohibition is not explicit, but rather implicit (dormant) in the grant of power to Congress. Congress may well want this power, but the power exists because that's how the courts interpret the text of the Constitution, not because Congress desires it. [User: steburns, July 30, 2005]

I think the article would read better if we started with current Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area. Perhaps make the John Marshall case the first point. It is complicated to read. To be fair, it is not an easy topic. User steburns is correct.75Janice 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 16:51 UTC 2 January 2007 u

[edit] Additional Exception

There is at least one more exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Quarantine - the states can keep out harmful agents if it is in the interest of public health (see Rehnquist dissent, Philadelphia v. New Jersey). The permissibility of the state regulation is balanced against the interest in interstate commerce - Kassell v. consolidated Freightways But still, the quaratine cannot be discriminatory. It is only allowed if there is absolutely no other way for the state to enforce important health policies (i.e. if NJ legislated against in-state trash producers, the Court may allow them to discriminate out of state trash if there was no other way to enforce the policy. The key is that NJ must be acting within its own borders in attempting to prevent health problems before they can discriminate against out-of-staters) I am new so i dont think im going to get into the main page, so I will let someone else tackle this one.

Jadyking 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section - Rejection

I would like this section fleshed out. At least, to have the natural issues treated that this provokes. For example, on what basis do these justices reject the doctrine? How do they react to the argument that the CC + 10th Ammendment = DCC? 71.34.120.58 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)