In the ruling "the Court clearly and succinctly declared that the franchise tax Alabama assesses on [foreign], (out-of-state) corporations violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause and therefore unenforceable" (Sabino 1).
This "watchdog" attitude of protecting against state protectionist statutes has maintained in the lower U.S. District Courts too as proven in the Texas ruling in March 2000. There was a Texas law that prohibited large out-of-state suppliers of wine shipping directly to stores. The
District Court ruled "that Texas had violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution with its law against direct shipment" (Hiaring, 1). The court told Texas that its residents have the right to become as drunk on out-of-state direct supplied wine as they do on in-state wine if they choose to.
Between the 1930s and the Lopez case, the Supreme Court decision to universally accept Congress's basis that the Commerce Clause allowed them to regulate everything from wildlife to isolated wetlands enabled the growth of "big" government and decreasing the powers of the State. If the Commerce Clause were that kind of blanket permission, then 3/4 of the Constitution could be tossed out, because it would be already covered.…
