Last week, we discussed the SCOTUS 1903 Champion v Ames case, (https://wp.me/pecX6i-3Jl) which ruled that Commerce has expansive “police powers” to regulate commerce, including the authority to prohibit some forms of commerce. But, as we mentioned last week, the US Constitution does not mention such a “police power.” Even more peculiar is that the “police power” arose from judicial interpretation of the Constitution, yet the word “interpret” is NOWHERE in the Constitution, let alone granted as a power to the courts. It has been done for so long, we largely just accept that’s what our nation’s courts do. But that doesn’t mean they have the Constitutional authority to do it. The Constitution does NOT give ANY courts the authority to “interpret” the constitution. Indeed, the only power entrusted to the judicial branch is the “judicial power.” Black’s Law Dictionary even defines “judicial power” as “the authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide CASES and to make binding judgments on THEM.” It is further defined as “a power conferred on a public officer involving the exercise of judgment and discretion in deciding questions of right in SPECIFIC CASES affecting personal and proprietary interests.” Simply put, the judicial power is the power to apply the law to the facts of a specific case to determine the outcome of THAT case. There is no authority of the courts to “interpret” our laws, let alone our Constitution.

In Champion v Ames (1903), also known as the Lottery Cases, SCOTUS considered whether Congress could prohibit the interstate shipment of lottery tickets. Champion turned on the meaning of the words “commerce” and “regulate” in the Commerce Clause.  The court held that “Lottery tickets are subjects of traffic and therefore are subjects of commerce, and the regulation of the carriage [or transportation] of such tickets from State to State, at least by independent carriers, is a regulation of commerce among the several States.”  The court also held the power to “regulate” commerce gives Congress the power to “prohibit” commerce.  In other words, the court held that just as a state has a police power over intrastate commerce – which includes the power to prohibit such commerce – Congress also has a police power over interstate commerce. To this day, Champion v Ames is cited for the principle that the power to “regulate” commerce includes the power to prohibit some forms of commerce…. Funny thing is, the US Constitution does not mention such a “police power.” Even more peculiar is that the “police power” arose from judicial interpretation of the Constitution, yet the word “interpret” is NOWHERE in the Constitution, let alone granted as a power to the courts…(more on this next week ??)