Justice George Sutherland and Commerce-Clause Federalism Before the New Deal

The jurisprudence of Justice George Sutherland illustrates howthe U.S. Supreme Court justified commerce-clause federalismbetween the end of the Civil War and the ascendancy of the NewDeal. Sutherland presented a constitutional and political defenseof federalism grounded in American natural-rights theory. Thisdefense presents arguments that federalism's skeptics and defendershave not considered sufficiently. Skeptics tend to argue thatis impossible to maintain a federalist constitutional arrangement;Sutherland's defense shows how to do so. Federalism's supporterstend to defend the commerce clause on negative grounds, thatit limits government power by forcing the states to competewith each other and Congress to compete with them all. Sutherland,however, drew on a tradition of political theory which stressedthat commerce-clause federalism offered positive benefits bykeeping the federal government lean and mean. It barred Congressfrom regulating on subjects about which it was less informedand competent than state legislators and regulators. By focusingthe federal government on truly national objects like interstatetrade, it left most regulation where citizens could see it-locally.According to this tradition, the commerce clause played a criticalrole in making the national government energetic and effective,and it also ordered local political processes so as to makecitizens self-reliant and fit for republican self-government.