Muscle Grow Case Qs the Commerce Clause

Muscle Grow Case Qs

The commerce clause grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, which the online sale and interstate shipment of Muscle Grow by Texas-Based Health Corp. definitely constitutes (U.S. ConstitutionArticle 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3). A determination of whether or not this constitutes commerce is not really at issue as it quite clearly is concerned with the sale and transport of goods across state lines, however the Commerce Clause only grants the federal government (specifically, Congress) the authority to regulate this commerce, and does not specifically allow the actions taken in this case -- that is, action taken by the President to directly regulate the commerce of one particular firm through a selective application of executive power rather than established law.

2)

According to United States Code Title 50, Chapter 34, there is no clear restriction on the ability of the President to declare a national state of emergency or to delegate special powers as a result of this national emergency. As long as the state of emergency is specific and entered into the Federal Registry by an Executive Order, as President Obama did in this scenario. While a challenge might be possible after the fact and lawmakers might certainly review this code in light of such an incident, it is not illegal or an abuse if authority as currently defined. The President is granted very broad authority, checked by Congress' later ability to reject it but still authorized initially, to declare such states of emergency.

3)

According to Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, no state is able to pass any law that limits or restricts the obligations of prior contracts, however the Constitution does not impose the same limitations on the federal government. The only action described in this case by a state that could potentially be interpreted as a violation of this clause is California's rendering Xerxes (Muscle Grow) illegal, yet this does not actually impair any previous contractual obligations, assuming any sales of Muscle Grow to in-state retailers or consumers had already been fulfilled by the time the law was passed (Which seems likely). The federal mandate to prosecute the makers and distributors of Muscle Grow ex post facto is certainly distasteful and might not survive a judicial challenge on other grounds (namely due process), but it does not violate the contracts clause.

4)