* Greg Taylor is a lecturer in law at the University of Adelaide, Australia. He has honors degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Adelaide and an LL.M. and a doctoral degree from the University of Marburg, Germany. He is a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of South Australia and teaches, among other subjects, Comparative Constitutional Law.
1 See generally Mark Tushnet, The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law, 108 Yale L.J. 1225 (1999).
2 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
3 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000). For a comment on the case before it reached the Supreme Court, see Recent Case, 113 Harv L. Rev. 816 (2000).
4 U.S. Const. art. I, � 8, cl. 3.
5 See, e.g., William Lasser, Justice Roberts and the Constitutional Revolution of 1937—Was There a “Switch In Time”?, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1347 (2000); Mark Tushnet, The New Deal Constitutional Revolution: Law, Politics, or What?, 66 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1061 (1999) (reviewing Barry Cushman, Rethinking the New Deal Court (1998)). Significant earlier contributions to the debate have been made by Felix Frankfurter, Mr Justice Roberts, 104 U. Pa. L. Rev. 311, 314 (1955); William E. Leuchtenberg, The Origins of F.D. Roosevelt’s “Court-Packing” Plan, Sup. Ct. Rev. 347, 381(1966); Samuel I. Rosenman, Working with Roosevelt 156 (1952); Robert L. Stern, The Commerce Clause and the National Economy, 1933-1946, 59 Harv. L. Rev. 645, 681 (1946); Arthur E. Sutherland, Constitutionalism in America: Origin and Evolution of its Fundamental Ideas 495–97, 499 (1965); Laurence H. Tribe, God Save This Honourable Court 67 (1985).
6 See Deborah Jones Merritt, Commerce!, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 674, 674 (1995).
7 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
8 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969); see also Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971).
9 Most notably, Professor Bruce Ackerman famously has asserted that the events of 1937 amended the Constitution. For a discussion of this thesis and further references, see Elizabeth C. Price, Constitutional Fidelity and the Commerce Clause: A Reply to Professor Ackerman, 48 Syracuse L. Rev. 139 (1998). For a re-assertion of anti-judicial review reasoning, see Larry D. Kramer, Putting the Politics Back Into the Political Safeguards of Federalism, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 215 (2000); and cf. Benjamin W. Roberson, Abortion as Commerce: The Impact of U.S. v. Lopez on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 50 Vand. L. Rev. 239, 247–49 (1997); Candice Hoke, Arendt, Tushnet and Lopez: The Philosophical Challenge Behind Ackerman’s Theory of Constitutional Moments, 47 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 903 (1994); Robert F. Nagel, Federalism as a Fundamental Value: National League of Cities in Perspective, Sup. Ct. Rev. 81 (1981); Mark Tushnet, Living in a Constitutional Moment?: Lopez and Constitutional Theory 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 845 (1996) (and the papers following his reprinted in the same journal); John C. Yoo, The Judicial Safeguards of Federalism, 70 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1311 (1997).
10 See, e.g., the two symposia on Lopez at 94 Mich. L. Rev. 533–831 (1995); 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 633–959 (1996). Equivalent symposia on Morrison are doubtless in preparation.
11 Martha A. Field, The Differing Federalisms of Canada and the United States, 55 Law & Contemp. Probs. 107, 107–12 (1992). A longer, but now somewhat dated, study was made by Alexander Smith, The Commerce Power in Canada and the United States (1963).
12 This consideration was expressly referred to by the Privy Council in Attorney-General (Canada) v. Attorney-General (Ontario) [1937] A.C. 326, 351.
13 The “double aspect theory” sometimes disturbs this tidy scheme. See, e.g., Bell Canada v. Quebec [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749, 765.
14 For a commentary from an Australian perspective, see Huddart Parker Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth (1931) 44 C.L.R. 492, 526.
15 For the origin of this phrase, see Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada 36, 545-46 (4th ed., 1997).
16 On the choice between the two sub-sections, see Hogg, supra note 15, at 530 n.9.
17 See, e.g., Russell v. R (1882) 7 App. Cas. 829, 839; Union Colliery of British Columbia v. Bryden [1899] A.C. 580, 587; Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board [1938] A.C. 708, 720.
18 For an interesting recent discussion of the Privy Council’s influence on Canadian constitutional law, see David Schneiderman, Harold Laski, Viscount Haldane and the Law of the Canadian Constitution in the Early Twentieth Century, 48 U. Toronto L.J. 521, 525, 555–59 (1998). For further references, see Hogg, supra note 15, at 119.
19 (1881) 7 App. Cas. 96, 113.
20 Id.
21 Particularly R v. Klassen (1960) 20 D.L.R.2d 406 (the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal in this case: [1959] S.C.R. ix); Caloil v. Attorney-General (Canada) [1971] S.C.R. 543; see also Labatt Breweries v. Attorney-General (Canada) [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914, 942; General Motors of Canada v. City National Leasing [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641, 659. See Neil Finkelstein, Recent Case, 68 Can. Bar. Rev. 802, 805 (1989); Hogg, supra note 15, at 533; P.W. Hogg, Comments, 54 Can. Bar. Rev. 361, 367 (1976); Paul C. Weiler, The Supreme Court and the Law of Canadian Federalism, 23 U. Toronto L.J. 307, 331 (1973).
22 As is shown by Dominion Stores v. R [1980] 1 S.C.R. 844; MacDonald v. Vapor Canada [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134, 160, 164; General Motors of Canada, 1 S.C.R. at 656, 659.
23 Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198, 1293.
24 Central Canada Potash v. Saskatchewan [1979] 1 S.C.R. 42. Now, section 92A(2) of the Constitution, added in 1982, might permit provincial legislation in the circumstances considered in this case, see Hogg, supra note 15, at 566, but that has nothing to do with the meaning of the trade and commerce power.
25 See Attorney-General (Canada) v. Attorney-General (Ontario) [1937] A.C. 326.
26 See Attorney-General (Canada) v. Attorney-General (Ontario) [1937] A.C. 355.
27 See Attorney-General (British Columbia) v. Attorney-General (Canada) [1937] A.C. 377.
28 On this episode in Canadian history, see Edgar McInnis, Canada: A Political and Social History 458–62 (1959); Ernest Watkins, R.B. Bennett: A Biography 214–17 (1963).
29 See Nadan v. R [1926] A.C. 482; British Coal v. R [1935] A.C. 500; Attorney-General (Ontario) v. Attorney-General (Canada) [1947] A.C. 127.
30 Since the patriation of the Canadian Constitution under Pierre Trudeau in 1982, the Canadian Constitution of 1867 has been called the Constitution Act 1867 (Can.).
31 See section 91(2A) of the Constitution Act 1867 (added in 1940).
32 See Attorney-General (British Columbia) v. Attorney-General (Canada) [1937] A.C. 391.
33 See Attorney-General (Canada) v. Attorney-General (British Columbia) [1937] A.C. 368.
34 See Attorney-General (Ontario) v. Attorney-General (Canada) [1937] A.C. 405, 417. Even this conclusion now seems to be in doubt as a result of later decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Hogg, supra note 15, at 539.
35 Re Ontario Energy Bd. (1986) 32 D.L.R.4th 706.
36 See Conklin & Garrett v. Ontario (1989) 63 D.L.R.4th 545, 549.
37 See It’s Adult Video Plus v. British Columbia (1991) 81 D.L.R.4th 436, 445–54.
38 See supra, IIB.
39 General Motors of Canada, 1 S.C.R. at 657.
40 See Weiler, supra note 21, at 362.
41 2 S.C.R. 134.
42 1 S.C.R. 641.
43 See MacDonald, 2 S.C.R. at 141–42, 149.
44 See Weiler, supra note 21, at 332.
45 Labatt Breweries, 1 S.C.R. 914 (product standards regulation for beer invalid).
46 See 1 S.C.R. at 659, 666.
47 See id. at 663–72.
48 See id. at 672–74.
49 See MacDonald, 2 S.C.R. at 158, 165; General Motors, 1 S.C.R. at 662.
50 See Hogg, supra note 15, at 542.
51 See id.
52 See 1 S.C.R. at 677–83.
53 Id. at 683.
54 See id. at 683–93.
55 Id. at 690–92.
56 [1999] 182 D.L.R.4th 172, 218.
57 Bulletin of Proceedings, Supreme Court of Canada, July 21, 2000.
58 182 D.L.R.4th at 176.
59 P.E. Nygh, An Analysis of Judicial Approaches to the Interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Australia and the United States, 5 Syd. L. Rev. 353 (1967); Jeremy Philips & Eytan Uliel, U.S. v. Lopez: Constitutional Interpretation in the United States and Australia, 18 U. N.S. Wales. L.J., 532 (1995); Leslie Zines, The High Court and the Constitution Ch. 4 (4th ed., 1997).
60 By section 98 of the Constitution, this power includes power over navigation, shipping, and state railways. This section is not an independent head of power; its effect is merely to confirm that navigation, etc., if inter-state or international, come within section 51(i): see Owners of the “S.S. Kalibia” v. Wilson (1910) 11 C.L.R. 689, 697, 707, 713; Newcastle & Hunter River Steamship v. Attorney-General (Commonwealth) (1921) 29 C.L.R. 357, 368. The Canadian equivalent of section 98 is section 91(10); cf. also section 92(10) in conjunction with section 91(29).
61 This court is the highest court in Australia. In combining general appellate functions with the functions of a constitutional tribunal, the High Court of Australia has functions very much like that of the Supreme Court of Canada (except that the Australian Court has no advisory jurisdiction).
62 This difference was pointed out early on in Australia: cf. Attorney-General (New S. Wales) v. Brewery Employees’ Union of New S. Wales (1908) 6 C.L.R. 469, 614. Intriguingly, the Australian Constitution, until the final drafting changes, did provide only for power with respect to “the regulation of trade and commerce with other countries and among the several States” (emphasis added). This was amended to the present form without discussion in the Convention: J. A. La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution 236 n.* (1974). La Nauze asks whether the original version of the federal power could have been interpreted as more restrictive.
63 R v. Burgess; ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CL.R. 608, 628; see also id. at 677. For a comprehensive list of the statements in the High Court of Australia on this topic, see Nygh, supra note 59, at 394.
64 Houston, E. & W. Texas Ry. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914).
65 See Wragg v. New South Wales (1953) 88 C.L.R. 353, 385. For similar statements, see R v. Burgess; ex parte Henry, 55 C.L.R. at 672; Airlines of New S. Wales v. New S. Wales (No. 2) (1965) 113 C.L.R. 54, 115.
66 O’Sullivan v. Noarlunga Meat Ltd. (1954) 92 C.L.R. 565, 594; see also Murphyores v. Commonwealth (1976) 136 C.L.R. 1 (regulations conditionally prohibiting export valid although environmental factors were the motive behind the legislation). Cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).
67 Nygh, supra note 59, at 360–63.
68 See Grannall v. Marrickville Margarine Ltd. (1955) 93 C.L.R. 55, 77; see also Beal v. Marrickville Margarine Ltd. (1966) 114 C.L.R. 283. For further discussion on the definition of “trade and commerce” and of “inter-State trade and commerce,” see Zines, supra note 59, at 548. The equivalent U.S. doctrine from the late 1890s is, of course, to be found in United States v. E.C. Knight, 156 U.S. 1, 12 (1895).
69 O’Sullivan, 92 C.L.R. at 598.
70 This difference is referred to expressly by Justice Stephen in Attorney-General (Western Australia) (ex rel. Ansett Transport Industries (Operations)) v. Australian Nat’l Airlines Comm’n (1976) 138 C.L.R. 492, 509; see also Zines, supra note 59, at 66.
71 Australian Nat’l Airlines Comm’n, 138 C.L.R. 492.
72 R v. Burgess; ex parte Henry, 55 C.L.R. at 627; Airlines of New S. Wales Ltd., 113 C.L.R. at 54.
73 See Huddart Parker, 44 C.L.R. at 492.
74 (1995) 183 C.L.R. 323, 323. See also Victoria v. Commonwealth (Industrial Relations Act Case) (1996) 187 C.L.R. 416, 553–558.
75 See, e.g., Industrial Relations Act Case, 187 C.L.R. at 568, citing Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626, 648-49; Daryl Dawson, The Constitution—Major Overhaul or Simple Tune-up?, 14 Melbourne U. L. Rev. 353, 359 (1984).
76 Lopez, 514 U.S. at 630; Morrison, 120 S.Ct. at 1759-60. Thomas, J. aptly commented that “the one advantage of the dissent’s standard is certainty: it is certain that under its analysis everything may be regulated under the guise of the commerce clause.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 600.
77 See Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 262.
78 Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1769 (Souter, J., dissenting).
79 See the discussion in Hogg, supra note 15, at 124–32.
80 Brian Galligan, Politics of the High Court: A Study of the Judicial Branch of Government in Australia 43 (1989).
81 Lopez, 514 U.S. at 578; see also Steven G. Calabresi, “A Government of Limited and Enumerated Powers”: In Defense of U.S. v. Lopez, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752, 790–99 (1995); Merritt, supra note 6, at 691-92; Glenn H. Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning, Lower Court Readings of Lopez, or, What if the Supreme Court Held a Constitutional Revolution and Nobody Came?, Wis. L. Rev. 369, 371 (2000). The merits of a certain degree of judicial restraint are, however, recognized, especially in Canada owing to its involved scheme for the distribution of powers. General Motors, 1 S.C.R. at 669.