commerce clause is used in determining the power of congress to regulate commerce in the case.
in determining the power of congress to regulate commerce in the case?
commerce clause
his opinion in "cooley v. board of wardens" 53 u.s. 299 (1852) held that the commerce power extends to laws related to pilotage. states laws related to commerce powers can be valid so long as congress is silent on the matter. that resolved a historic controversy over federal interstate commerce powers. to this day, it is an important precedent for resolving disputes. the court interpreted article i, section 8, clause 3 of the us constitution, the commerce clause. the issue was whether states can regulate aspects of commerce or congress retains exclusive jurisdiction to regulate commerce. curtis concluded that the federal government has exclusive power to regulate commerce only when national uniformity is required. otherwise, states may regulate commerce.
benjamin robbins curtis
another dispute over american indian government is its sovereignty versus that of the states. the federal u.s. government has always been the government that makes treaties with indian tribes – not individual states. article 1, section 8 of the constitution states that "congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the indian tribes". this determined that indian tribes were separate from the federal or state governments and that the states did not have power to regulate commerce with the tribes, much less regulate the tribes. the states and tribal nations have clashed over many issues such as indian gaming, fishing, and hunting. american indians believed that they had treaties between their ancestors and the united states government, protecting their right to fish, while non-indians believed the states were responsible for regulating commercial and sports fishing. in the case "menominee tribe v. united states" in 1968, it was ruled that "the establishment of a reservation by treaty, statute or agreement includes an implied right of indians to hunt and fish on that reservation free of regulation by the state". states have tried to extend their power over the tribes in many other instances, but federal government ruling has continuously ruled in favor of tribal sovereignty. a seminal court case was "worcester v. georgia". chief justice marshall found that "england had treated the tribes as sovereign and negotiated treaties of alliance with them. the united states followed suit, thus continuing the practice of recognizing tribal sovereignty. when the united states assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty." as determined in the supreme court case "united states v. nice" (1916), u.s. citizens are subject to all u.s. laws even if they also have tribal citizenship.
tribal sovereignty in the united states