The Commerce Clause: Heart Of Atlanta Motel V. United States

1667 Words4 Pages

The Commerce Clause derives out of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This Clause was established in 1787 and gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (The Legal Information Institute). This is to ensure that the Constitution is balancing certain powers for the federal government. On the other hand, the Tenth Amendment states that “[t]he 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” (The Legal Information Institute). In past cases, such has Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States, United States v. Lopez and United States v. …show more content…

Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Despite these decisions, the Commerce Clause could still effectively be used to limit the federal government’s power. During the 1960s, America face turmoil due to constant uproars and riots that segregation and integration spurred. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a large movement, which prohibited segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, that passed the act under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge foreign users with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up until this point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited request to those within the state. This is vital to the outbreak of discrimination that occurred within the case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was a case that questioned whether Congress had the ability to regulate commerce? The issue with this action formed Heart of Atlanta Motel stated that they are a private entity and the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Five regulate government entities. Congress tried to fight back stating that the discrimination done within the motel affected interstate markets, which the courts agreed. The courts went in the manner to solve such a fragile topic because the courts believed that African Americans would be reluctant to travel and go on vacation to other towns because they would be unsure as to where they would reside during their time of vacation. The courts stated this type of discrimination interfered with interstate economic

Open Document