The Commerce Clause Issue in Corfield

In my research into Bushrod Washington’s original notes on Corfield v. Coryell, I’ve come across something else of interest. One constitutional claim in the case was that New Jersey’s law barring out-of-state residents from harvesting oysters in state waters violated the Commerce Clause. The claim was that Congress’s commerce power was exclusive and that the state was, in fact, regulating commerce in navigable waters. When the Justice was first considering this question, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Gibbons v. Ogden. Washington began his analysis with the tentative premise that the commerce power was exclusive. He then wondered why the New Jersey regulation should be considered commercial at all: [D]oes the article of the Constitution above mentioned apply to the case[?] The law merely forbids the taking of oysters. Cannot a law be made to prevent citizens of other states from taking sand, stones, wood, or anything belonging to…

Read more detail on Recent Technology posts –

This entry was posted in Technology & Cyberlaw and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply