Interconnectivity, Interstate Commerice, and the US Constitution

In the US Constitution, Congress is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. Everyone, even those who follow the strictest versions of the enumerated powers and similar doctrines acknowledges this. Hard not to, as it's right there written on hemp paper (the irony of which should disturb all intelligent persons).

The question is this: what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce?

The "interstate" part is relatively easy: something which crosses state lines. It's the "commerce" part which is usually harder. But even accepting any relatively strict definition, it stands to reason that to regulate interstate commerce, one must regulate those who participate in it (as cows, grain, and iron ingots don't really care about statutes). So regulation of interstate commerce really amounts to regulating the action of people insofar as they participate in the system of interstate commerce.

So what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce? This is hard to answer, but what it means to NOT participate in interstate commerce should be pretty easy. From an economic point of view, not participating would mean the impact of some person's economic activity is localized, e.g. that they do not impact markets in any other state. The negate of this is that a person who does participate in interstate commerce engages in economic activity is one whose economic activity impacts other states.

This implies that the extent of the Federal Government's power to regulate economic activity would grow (and the states' would shrink) with the rise of the interconnectivity of the economic activity of different localities. In the days of the Founding Fathers, it is hard to imagine Upstate New York having a major impact on the South Carolina countryside and even that adjacent counties might suffer independent economic fates. This has, thanks largely to the increase in speed and efficacy of both communications and transportation largely ended. While some parts of the nation may seem like they are not even in the same national economy, if you went looking you would doubtless find that almost everyone has a product with a component from almost any state (and most nations).

In reality, though, a simple reading of the Constitution reveals an interesting fact: the Founding Fathers were well aware of the high levels of interconnectedness and interdependence. Take, for instance, the clause regulating the power to issue money. If the thirteen colonies were only incidentally connected, this would hardly be a major or even necessary provision. But it is there. Likewise in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there was acute awareness of the interconnectedness of the colonies if for no other reason than by way of the acknowledgment of the efficacy of a strong central government if allowed to act. This leads me to believe that even in the time of the Founding Fathers the idea of a man who does not engage in some way with markets which have interstate impacts was a pleasant myth perpetuated to argue for limitation of Federal powers. If it was a myth then, it is even more of a myth now.

So it looks like the answer is simple. When in the 1940's the US Supreme Court reasoned it was well neigh impossible for one to avoid engaging in commerce lacking an impact across state lines, it wasn't so much judicial activism as a simple recognition of the fact we are all economically interconnected both within and across state lines.