Explain how the interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has changed, thereby empowering the U.S. Congress to regulate commerce

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Under the Court's initial narrow interpretation, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to apply only to the transportation of goods. Manufacturing of goods, even of goods that were going to be sold in another state, was not considered to have a direct effect on interstate commerce and, thus, was not subject to federal regulation. During the 1930s, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause was broadened to allow a greater scope for federal regulations. In a case, it ruled that if activities that are intrastate in character have such a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect that commerce from burdens, Congress has the power to control it. Over the next several decades, the Supreme Court continued to expand Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate activities that affect interstate commerce. In Perez v. United States, loansharking, conducted on a local basis, was deemed to affect interstate commerce because of its connection to organized crime on a national scale, as the funds from loan-sharking help to pay for crime across the United States. In United States v. Lake, the court ruled that a locally operated coal mine that sells its coal locally and buys its supplies locally can still be subjected to federal regulations (Federal Mine Safety and Health Act) because the local activities of all coal mines help to influence the interstate market for coal.
Activities that are purely intrastate can be regulated if they affect interstate commerce. The effect on interstate commerce may be indirect or direct. This was demonstrated in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, when it upheld federal regulation of the production of wheat on a farm in Ohio that produced only 239 bushels of wheat solely for consumption on the farm. The Court's rationale was that even though one wheat farmer's activities might not matter, the combination of a lot of small farmers' activities could have a substantial impact on the national wheat market.