- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,566
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Unless I'm just grossly misunderstanding what you're saying, that statement appears to run completely counter to Darby. The whole thing is about how Congress can regulate firms that engage in interstate commerce whether or not the specific thing being regulated is, itself "interstate commerce". The decision even acknowledges the authority of Congress to regulate intrastate commercial activities that impact interstate commerce.
To the contrary, my statement Congress’ “power isn’t to regulate those who participate in interstate commerce” is entirely consistent with Darby.
First, the statute at issue in Darby did not include any exercise of Congressional power that said any and all businesses participating in interstate commerce must pay X amount of dollars/hr . That statute would not have been constitutional as Congress isn’t regulating interstate commerce at all.
Indeed, the Court in Darby spills a lot of ink to explain the basis of the statutory scheme is Congress regulating interstate commerce. You’ve misunderstood Darby.
Rather, Darby says a corollary of the power to regulate interstate commerce is a power to exclude articles from interstate commerce. Congress, then, can prohibit articles, objects and products from entering commerce when they are entered under certain prohibited conditions, even if the conditions are intrastate activities, which is what was going on in Darby. Darby is not and never has been a case involving Congress regulating entities participating in interstate commerce. Rather, Darby is a case in which Congress was regulating interstate commerce by excluding items and products from entering commerce under certain conditions.
Which is to say Congress said companies, businesses, etcetera, may ship their goods, products, and objects, in interstate commerce so long as X, Y, Z conditions are met, but the basis for the conditions was a regulation of commerce and attached to regulating commerce.
Upvote
0