Did John Marshall Actually Try To Limit Federal Power?

by | Dec 29, 2021

Did John Marshall Actually Try To Limit Federal Power?

by | Dec 29, 2021

john marshall by henry inman, 1832

Despite the words of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause remaining constant for over 200 years, their meaning and scope has not. In our young republic’s history the era of the Marshall Court yielded two foundational cases which expanded the federal government’s implied powers, originally grounded in the Necessary and Proper Clause. The greatest expansions of the federal government have come from case after case of implied powers that have been created by using the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause.

The first of these two great cases came in the 1819 Supreme Court opinion McCulloch v. Maryland. This case found that implied powers gave Congress the authority to charter a central bank.

The second case would come five years later in the form of Gibbons v. Ogden.

In some ways, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power using expansive definitions of various words in the Commerce Clause. But future courts ignored an important limiting principle he included in his opinion.

The Commerce Clause operates both as a power delegated to Congress and a constraint upon state legislation. The clause found in Article I, § 8, empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

To this day, the debate over the extent of the commerce power centers on the definitions of “to regulate,” “commerce,” and “among the several states.”

Gibbons v. Ogden was the Court’s first interpretation of these terms.

New York law gave Aaron Ogden a monopoly; only his company could operate steamboats within New York waters. Another man, Thomas Gibbons, disregarded that law. He operated steamboats that traveled from New Jersey to New York.

Ogden sued to halt Gibbons’ steamboat business. He contended that New York law gave him a monopoly. Gibbons countered that New York law interfered with a federal law that licensed him to operate his ships. If Congress had the power to license ships that travel between one state and another, then the New York law would be preempted, and thus unconstitutional. The New York courts rejected Gibbons’ constitutional arguments and enjoined his operations. In turn, Gibbons appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. He argued that the federal law was supported by Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, and contended that a state cannot regulate interstate commerce.

Ogden argued that the New York monopoly law was constitutional because Congress lacked the power to regulate boats traveling between New York and New Jersey. Commerce he contended was limited to “traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities and…it [did not] comprehend navigation.” Therefore the New York law should control.

As in McCulloch, Chief Justice Marshall rejected the narrowest interpretation of congressional power in favor of a broader one. He explained that Ogden’s construction would “restrict a general term,” that is commerce, which is “applicable to many objects, to one of its significations”—meaning trade or traffic. Instead, Marshall adopted a broader interpretation of the meaning of the word commerce. He concluded that “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for that intercourse.”

This conclusion is also supported by evidence that the original meaning of “commerce” included laws governing navigation.

Next Marshall explained that the word “among” in the Commerce Clause is defined as “intermingled with.” Marshall wrote that comprehensive as the word ‘among’ is, it may, very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.” The word “concerns” is another broadening term.

When the words of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution are replaced by synonyms used by Marshall (“commerce” with intercourse and “among” with intermingled with), the power seems to be broader—or so later courts would rule.

The narrowest definition of “to regulate” is to “make regular.” That is, to regulate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. Some scholars and a number of Supreme Court Justices have supported that narrow definition.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has never formally accepted a limited view of what “to regulate” means. From the outset, in Gibbons v Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall saw the power to regulate as coextensive with the other delegated powers of Congress. He declared, “This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution.”

In other words “to regulate” is descriptive of the essential and core congressional power to legislate. The manner in which Congress decides to regulate commerce is completely at the discretion of Congress.

However, like in McCulloch, Marshall placed an important limiting principle on the scope of Congress’ powers. The Commerce Clause enumerated three specific powers: to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes. Therefore, that “enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” In other words, Congress can’t regulate any other type of commerce than the three that are listed. Specifically, Marshall found that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate the “exclusively internal commerce of a state.” Such “exclusively internal commerce” he added “may be considered as reserved for the state itself.”

The text of the Tenth Amendment supports Marshall’s conclusion. It provides that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If an enumerated power is not delegated to Congress, then it is reserved to the states.

With this broad reading of “commerce” and “among” the Court found that Congress had the power to enact the federal law that licensed Gibbons’ boats. Like in McCulloch, Marshall can be accused of casually employing expansive and comparatively imprecise rhetoric concerning the scope of Congress’ enumerated powers. Yet, Marshall in fact reaffirmed limits on these powers. Future decisions would rely on Marshall’s broad definition of “commerce” and “among,” yet ignore his limitations on federal power.

Support The Libertarian Institute

We rely on the generosity of our donors to make all of this possible. Support The legendary Sheldon Richman, the brilliant Kyle Anzalone and our great group of writers and podcasters.

About Bob Fiedler

Bob Fiedler is a constitutional law scholar and legal commentator from the Twin Cities and host of the “Categorical Imperatives Podcast” where he discuss current events in law, politics & culture from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer and a libertarian moral philosophy. Find Bob at Substack, Odysee, Patreon, LBRY and Anchor.fm

Our Books

6 Libooks011721lg

Related Articles


TGIF: Easy Cases May Make Bad Rules

TGIF: Easy Cases May Make Bad Rules

Hard cases make bad law, an adage apparently coined before 1837 tells us. In other words, "an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases." Not everyone has agreed that this is the case, but we'll let that go. I...

read more
Prohibition Yesterday and Today, Same as Ever

Prohibition Yesterday and Today, Same as Ever

It was 103 years ago, to the week, that the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified which made the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors a criminal offense. One year later its companion statute to enact and enforce the amendment, Volstead Act, went...

read more
The War Over Your Mind

The War Over Your Mind

Attention is the new currency. This isn’t an original thought. For decades there has been competition for your mind and attention on a multitude of fronts. With the popularity of social media and the twenty-four-hour news cycle the efforts have only accelerated. The...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This