[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000036","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/37\/commerce-with-foreign-nations\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003ECommerce with Foreign Nations\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article I, Section 8, Clause 3\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations....\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EEven before the Constitutional Convention, James Madison had long argued that exclusive power over foreign commerce should be vested in the national government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had the power to raise tariffs against goods from others states and from foreign nations,\u0026nbsp;creating, as Madison put it, \u0022rival, conflicting and angry regulations.\u0022 Thus, Great Britain had been able to use its power over duties and tariffs to monopolize trade in its favor without the United States government having the ability to respond.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAt Philadelphia, there was unanimity that one of the general powers of the new government should be to regulate foreign commerce. Even Anti-Federalist Luther Martin, who later left the Convention to oppose the Constitution, had no doubts about it. In fact, in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 42, one of Madison\u0027s arguments for lodging the power to regulate commerce among the states with Congress was that \u0022without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce, would have been incompleat, and ineffectual.\u0022\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESome delegates, particularly from the South, wanted any regulation of foreign commerce to be effective only through a supermajority vote in Congress, but Madison successfully countered that a supermajority would cripple the government if it were necessary to retaliate against discriminatory tariffs from a foreign country.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlthough Madison undoubtedly believed that the power to regulate foreign commerce was exclusive to the federal government, the proposition is not obvious from the text. Elsewhere, the Constitution denies the states certain powers over foreign commerce (no treaties or other agreements and no tariffs except under very limited circumstances). The text of the Commerce Clause does not differentiate between Congress\u0027s power \u0022to regulate\u0022 foreign commerce from its power over interstate commerce, and some Justices on the Supreme Court have opined that Congress\u0027s power to regulate interstate commerce is coextensive with its power over foreign commerce. Nonetheless, a number of other opinions have held that Congress\u0027s power over foreign commerce is qualitatively greater than its power to regulate commerce among the states, because it is part of the federal government\u0027s complete sovereign power over foreign relations, in which the states have no standing. \u003Ci\u003EBrolan v. United States\u003C\/i\u003E (1915). In \u003Ci\u003EBoard of Trustees of University of Illinois v. United States\u003C\/i\u003E (1933), the Court stated: \u0022In international relations and with respect to foreign intercourse and trade the people of the United States act through a single government with unified and adequate national power.\u0022 And in \u003Ci\u003EJapan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles\u003C\/i\u003E (1979), the Court declared that \u0022[f]oreign commerce is preeminently a matter of national concern.\u0022 As early as 1827\u0026nbsp;in \u003Ci\u003EBrown v. Maryland\u003C\/i\u003E, Chief Justice John Marshall held that both the Import-Export Clause and the Commerce with Foreign Nations Clause precluded a state from burdening an imported good with a tax or license so long as the good remained in the ownership of the importer and \u0022in the original form or package,\u0022 though, later, the Court permitted states to prohibit dangerous or noxious foreign goods. \u003Ci\u003ECompagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health\u003C\/i\u003E (1902).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe courts have affirmed Congress\u2019 extensive power over foreign commerce. According to Professor Louis Henkin, the foreign commerce clause was originally the \u201cbasis for Congressional regulation of maritime and admiralty affairs and its control of immigration.\u201d Subsequently, the clause has been the basis for extending American criminal jurisdiction abroad. Foreign commerce \u201cincludes both goods and services,\u201d United States v. Clark (2006), and the regulation of foreign commerce \u201cincludes the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States.\u201d United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams (1904). There must always be some nexus between the United States and the foreign commercial activity, but the nexus need not be extensive. For example, Congress\u2019s power over foreign commerce does not turn on whether Americans are transporting American goods or even whether the voyage includes an American port, so long as the goods are being transported in American flag ships. Pacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc. (1968).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUnlike Congress\u2019s power over commerce \u201camong the several states,\u201d federalism concerns are not as present in its control over foreign commerce. Today, the Court allows the states less power to tax foreign commerce than they have to tax interstate commerce. In \u003Ci\u003EComplete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady\u003C\/i\u003E (1977), the Supreme Court declared that a state tax affecting interstate commerce would be valid only if it were: (1) nondiscriminatory, (2) applied to an interstate activity that had a \u0022substantial nexus\u0022 with the state, (3) apportioned fairly, and (4) connected to services that the state provided. Later, in \u003Ci\u003EJapan Line\u003C\/i\u003E, the Court added two further considerations to taxation of a foreign instrumentality: (1) the danger of multiple taxation and (2) the danger that the tax may damage the need for federal uniformity. Even though the Court has been somewhat more generous in recent years in permitting state taxation that involves foreign commerce, the rules continue to suggest a greater federal constitutional interest in foreign commerce than in commerce among the states, where the background principles of federalism still have some presence.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/David_Forte.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/facultyprofile.csuohio.edu\/csufacultyprofile\/detail.cfm?FacultyID=D_FORTE\u0022\u003EDavid F. Forte\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000036-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000036-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000036-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000036-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAlbert S. Abel, \u003Ci\u003EThe Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment\u003C\/i\u003E, 25 Minn. L. Rev. 432 (1941)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAnthony J. Colangelo, \u003Ci\u003EThe Foreign Commerce Clause\u003C\/i\u003E, 96 VA. L. REV. 949 (2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELOUIS HENKIN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (2D ED. 1996)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ESaikrishna Prakash, \u003Ci\u003EOur Three Commerce Clauses\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Eand the Presumption of Intrasentence Uniformity\u003C\/i\u003E,\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003E55 ARK. L. REV. 1149 (2003)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000036-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBrown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827) Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EButtfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States \u003Ci\u003Eex rel.\u003C\/i\u003E Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBrolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216 (1915)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBd. of Trustees of University of Illinois v. United States, 289 U.S. 48 (1933)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 404 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1968)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMichelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (1976)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EComplete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px\u0022\u003E(1977)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJapan Line, Ltd. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 (1979)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EContainer Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159 (1983)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EItel Containers Int\u2019l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60 (1993)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000036-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000037\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECommerce Among the States\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000038\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECommerce with the Indian Tribes\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000068\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EState Treaties\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000073\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EImport-Export Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]