dlaycock at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
Wed Dec 31 18:14:15 PST 1997
The transportation and communication revolutions changed the scope
of the commerce power by changing the facts on the ground. I write
(briefly) about this in 99 Yale LJ 1711, 1735-36 (1990):
"One could apply the Supreme Court's modern law of interstate
commerce to the economy of 1787, and most commerce would be intrastate.
Land transportation was prohibitively expensive; the cost of shipping goods
thirty miles inland equaled the cost of shipping them to England. . . .
With the coming of the railroads, the local market was linked to national
markets and lost control of its destiny. . . .
"Voters increasingly chose to regulate this integrated national
ecnomy at the Federal level, especially after the Great Depression
overwhelmed the resources of state and local government. . . . The concept
of intrastate commerce became obsolete, not because of judicial
interpretation, but because of technological change."
At 03:43 AM 12/31/97 EST, you wrote:
>Doug Laycock writes that we agree on the scope of federal power at the time of
>the Framing but that "we disagree about . . . the impact of the Civil War, the
>transportation and communications revolutions, the New Deal, and eight
>constitutional amendments expanding federal power." We definitely disagree
>about the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment and its relationship to
>federalism, probably disagree about the New Deal, and may disagree about the
>interpretation of the eight constitutional amendments expanding federal power.
>But how did the transportation and communications revolutions appear here?
>Am I missing something? I am writing an article on copyright and the
>Constitution and wonder if this is relevant.
>Center of Theological Inquiry
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
More information about the Religionlaw