WPC ի~g3ElE-+U@ (y[jgRTp4ʎ-G<%Dc TUV /.QRCRQ+ؽEܶ o|(j7f.ޏwgT]EIlAZ F+;KcǼ< %. 00\4i 0xMqMu|y 0[ 1uPNOfQ Sah 0@ 0T 0h 0|  0(!w@!f! 8!! *"4A"\U"##^ # B"## j' ''UN'' m' 0<( 0Q( R") 1t)M* 0^!* R* 0* 0+ Rp, 0, R- 0. 0x/ Rx/ 1/ 0DQ0 00UN?1#!1 C2 B*22 3 R+3f}3 B*3 B*3 03^5 B9%9aC; 0pS; $= (=> F F  FF $J 4J B#Kf@K  BK "bKaK KK 1;MEMMMaM 0M 0 N 0LO 0:@P ,RX>R <RKR .S &KS;qS vSg"T (TT $QUWuU (U U VdV zV VVVV gW 0*WY lafaMaU4a a bab  *b 7btbqUc jc  0d:d n%eHe 0e 0f 0g 0&h 0fj 0wk 0l 0n 0ap 0sp 0Sq 03r 0s 0s 0t 0u 0e]v 0v 0w 0x 0ny 0Rz 0${ 0{ 0a| 0)} 0 ~ 0~ 0 0 0w 0E 0 0: 0G 0BA 4   ׅ *o! 8kȆ 03 1scև % 0B 0] 0_ 0 A 0a 0p 0w 0M 0ݐ 0S 0- 05 0 0kΔ 0,9 0e 07{ 07 04 04 04Q 04 01 1W  A  NU*[   T (.; ir  &% L ,0 (3"[ }N loO l * <jZ  ħ    $F6 ,| ,TF ƪnު Lb ,;9g ,9̬ ! @%5e "B ,9* c   - &M4s &4ͱ  Q) z  d $r ,N³ n" ,: $ S2 "{  "TB h  l h     ˹hݹ ,ENq * W $ "P@ P  bb: "ڽa ] u   n " rĿ 6 *Jt " n rWk ^4k hXe P  n h %v5 l@ lW nWt p9 rV r} rf rH p[ rc rc:\wpwin\ketemps\supreme1.wpt$X(4]$P P      _ N'P P    _  (P3N$ ]!P P       r (p$P P   Ӏ$_X$X  1  !  _TheClaremontInstituteCenterforConstitutionalJurisprudencefiles  thisbriefwiththeconsentofallparties.Thelettersgrantingconsentarebeingfiledconcurrently.Counselforapartydidnotauthorthisbriefinwholeorinpart.Nopersonorentity,otherthanAmicusCuriae,its p  members,oritscounselmadeamonetarycontributionspecificallyforthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.64heading 1    Y!)`,ClarendonCondensedY     XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) 1 ' BTALKING0BTALKING .    CASESINSIDE COVER(H$8   (, $8  0`     (@/B$8  0`   0 ` `  ` (T$8  0`   0 ` ` 0       \R3' Letter\ ( ($ EDEEDCounsel of Record addressCases:c'\w  R 4N*P P    _% W @ CounselforAmicusCuriaeTheClaremontInstitute  @ CenterforConstitutionalJurisprudence  ABZ) xdEP p8A3|xg(c d w (p$P P   Ӏ$_X$X  2  !  _WenotethatundertheCourtofAppealsrationale,itwouldappearthat  theCorpsofEngineershasbeentoostingywithitsjurisdictionalclaims.ThebirdsneednottravelacrossstatelinesfortheCorpstohavejurisdiction,apparently,aslongassomebirdwatcherstravelacrossstatelinestoobservethem.Thus,undertheSeventhCircuitsrationale,the migratorypartofthe migratorybirdruleisreallyunnecessary;indeed,the birdpartoftherulewouldalsoappeartobeunnecessary,sincelandbasedcritters,whichareequallydependanton waters,arealsohunted,trappedandobserved,sometimesbypeoplewhotravelacrossstatelines.Statutes:Miscellaneous:(@ Z 6Times New Roman RegularU<:Default Para(PY2p$ ]!P P      ݀$#dX$X  0  !Case#@T"\ \X"Case#j7 ,./13 +?su{SupremeSupreme Court Brief StyleI.A.1.a.(i)1)a)"cZ4(u$  @*  Cat1j7 dQ: '_SUP(e$  2  a  .3  0   (2$ 0   2   .3  0` (#(# A Party2( j7 dQr '_SUP(>$ 0  0` (#(#  2(  0  )3  0 ` (#` (# U Cat2( j7 dQr '_SUP($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#  2(  a  )3  0 (# (# f(P3N$ ]!P P      TypedQr '_SUP l44em 5HCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I.(#$  0  <77Dp4:QuickFormat19XXX  9XXX  (9 Z6Times New Roman RegularHP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0 d& 22d 2d E. C. Knight9Title&p Pd d&p d Pd<DB:QuickFormat2XXX$XXXXX  T@,4 <DL!"&)\+XT XXX$XXXXX  T@,4 <DL!"&)\+XT  T (p$P P   Ӏ$_X$X  3  !  __$_V_Wereitotherwise,thefactthatmillionsofpeoplespendawholelotof  moneytravelingtobewithrelativesforThanksgivingdinnerwouldgivethefederalgovernmentauthorityundertheCommerceClausetoregulatethefamilyrelationshipsthatgiverisetoallthattraveling.Theabsurdityoftheexerciseofpowerintheonecaseisaspatentasitisintheother._Cf_. > N    Lopez,514U.S.,at564; a Morrison,120S.Ct.,at1751.#_V##$__#% %d  (p$P P   Ӏ$_X$X  4  !  _Indeed,thewholeCleanWaterAct,andnotjusttheexpanded  interpretationpropoundedbytheCorpsofEngineersthatisatissuehere,isarguablyunconstitutionalpretext.EnsuringthenavigabilityofthenationswaterswouldbeaCommerceClausepurpose,butthatisnotwhattheCleanWaterActpurportstodo.Seeinfra,at1920.COVER<D:QuickFormat3$XXX   X  T+ P <DL!4 ,, X"&XT X  6  X`P X6  XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,$XXX   X  T+ P <DL!4 ,, X"&XT;Inhouse counselCounsel of Record  (p$P P   Ӏ$_X$X  6  !  _Thisistrueevenunderthestatutorydefinitionof navigablewatersas   thewatersoftheUnitedStates,includingtheterritorialseas.  33U.S.C.1362(7). ThewatersoftheUnitedStatesisbothbroaderandmorenarrowthan navigablewaters,fromacommerceclauseperspective.Thephraseisbroaderbecause waterswouldseemtoincludenonnavigablewaters,whichcouldbereachedbyCongressunderthe  NecessaryandProperClause(ratherthanthe  CommerceClausedirectly),ifregulationof   suchwaterswasbothnecessaryandpropertofurtherCongresssCommerceClausepowers.Hence,thisCourtsholdingin  UnitedStatesv.Riverside X h _ Bayview_ ԀHomes,Inc.,474U.S.121,13335(1985),thatCongressional  0  powerextendstowetlandsthatareadjacentto,andtherebyaffect,navigablewaters.Thephraseisnarrowerbecausetheclause oftheUnitedStateshashistoricallyexcludedwatersthatarewhollywithinasinglestate.See, x  e.g.,  Millerv.CityofNewYork,109U.S.385,39596(1883)( by @P  navigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesaremeantsuchasarenavigableinfact,andwhich,bythemselvesortheirconnectionwithotherwaters,formacontinuouschannelforcommercewithforeigncountriesoramongthestates(citing 2 TheDanielBall,77U.S.(10Wall.)557(1870)); 5 South `p  Carolinav.Georgia,93U.S.4,10(1876)(describingthenavigablewaters (8 oftheUnitedStatesasthose whichareaccessiblefromaStateotherthanthoseinwhichtheylie); S UnitedStatesv.Chicago,M.,St.P.&P.R.Co.,  312U.S.592,596(1941)(same).PrintzSeminole TribeAlden  (p$P P   Ӏ$_X$X  5  !  _Thereisnoevidence,forexample,thatthefillingofsomepondswould  leadtothefillingofallponds.Indeed,practicalexperiencesuggestsjusttheopposite;asnaturalhabitatsbecomemorescarce,communitiestendtobecomemorevigorousintheirprotectionofremaininghabitats,and p   migratorybirdsareprettyadeptatfindingnewhabitats(justastheyfoundthe_SWANCC_Ԁpondsthatformedontheabandonedgravelpit).Andevenifthefillingof_SWANCC_spondscouldpossiblycauseadeclineinthemigratorybirdpopulations,onemightjustasreadilyassumethattravelbybirdwatchersintentonobservingtheremainingmigratorybirdpopulationswouldincreaseratherthandecrease.College Sav. BankInhouse counsel addressK KdFlorida PrepaidInside captionTABLE BDated  ]!  __Brzonkala_Ԁv.VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandState    University,169F.3d820,840(4thCir.1999),     _affd_Ԁsubnom,UnitedStatesv.Morrison,     120S.Ct.1740(2000)(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.COUNSEL<77DF:QuickFormat4$XXX  $XXX  <EEDs:QuickFormat5$XXX  ,$XXX  ,<\\Dӌ:QuickFormat6$XXX$X$XXX$X ,$XXX$X$XXX$X ,<D<:QuickFormat7$XXX$X$XXX$X  T@,4 <DL!"&)\+XT , $XXX$X$XXX$X  T@,4 <DL!"&)\+XT , Morrison N ]!  _U.S.Const.,Art.I,sec.8,cl.18bNecessary & Proper Clause2 A ]!  _U.S.Const.,Amend.XIdEleventh Amendment2Eleventh Amendment 1 ]!  _gNew York v. United StatesCASES.S. 144, 156-57 (1CASES ] ]!  _CleanWaterAct,33U.S.C.1251etseq.iClean Water Act2 ]!  _HoffmanHomes,Inc.v.EPA,    999F.2d256(7thCir.1993)kHoffman Homes1 M ]!  _U.S.Const.,Art.I,sec.8,cl.3mCommerce Clause2SWANCC Z ]!  _Arizonav.Evans,514U.S.1(1995)qArizona1Atascadero ]!  _Baldwinv.FishandGame_Comm'n_ԀofMont.,    436U.S.371(1978)vBaldwin1<JDz:QuickFormat8$XXX  E+ P <DL!P XE X  6  X`P X6  XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,$XXX  E+ P <DL!P XE X   ]!  _UnitedStatesv.Morrison,    120S.Ct.1740(2000)yMorrison1es v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000)1 l ]!  _BoyScoutsofAmericav.Dale,120S.Ct.2446(2000){Boy Scouts1 ]!  _CaliforniaDemocraticPartyv.Jones,    120S.Ct.2402(2000)}California Dem1<UD:QuickFormat9$XXX  E+ P <DL!P XE X  6  X`P X6  ,X ,Q=,4 <DL T$&)\+  XQ $XXX  E+ P <DL!P XE X   ,  ` ]!  _Philadelphiav.NewJersey,437U.S.617(1978)Philadelphia1 ]!  _OregonWasteSystems,Inc.v.DepartmentofEnviron    mentalQualityofOre.,511U.S.93(1994)Oregon Waste1stems, Inc. v. Department of Enviro1 ]!  _CampsNewfound/_Owatonna_v.TownofHarrison,    Maine,520U.S.564(1997)Camps1wfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison, Maine1!)`,ClarendonCondensed\  `&Times New Roman$ $Old GondorMonthYearTABLE A3John Marini entitled The Imperial Congress: Crisis in the Separation of Powers3 j_}{JohnMarini,}{fs24TheImperialCongress:}{}{fs24CrisisintheSeparationofPowers}{ g ]!  _Baileyv.Holland,126F.2d317(4thCir.1942)Bailey1 Holland, 126 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1942)1Kidd ]!  _SolidWasteAgencyofNorthernCookCounty    v.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,     191F.3d845(7thCir.1999)SWANCC1te Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S.1 > ]!  _33U.S.C.13116gW4heading 2  ,   ,"| P | X`,       )P P X`)    6cV-:4heading 3    0,X`X0  V    0,X`X06|N4heading 4     J@X| X`!$p&( +x-/J      )P P X`)  6Z4heading 5  ` <   J@| X`[!$p&( +x-/J       )P P X`)  6h4heading 6     4`      )P P X`)XXX  64heading 7   ``?%2A`Arial?    )P P X`)XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  64heading 8  h  ?%2A`Arial?    )P P X`)XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  64heading 9     ?%2A`Arial?    )P P X`) XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  421Outline        4TW22Outline  X   &  X`&     )P P X`)    4TWx23Outline     & X`&     )P P X`)    4TW24Outline     &X X`&     )P P X`)    4TW25Outline  `   & X`&     )P P X`)    4NK26Outline  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  4NK27Outline  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  4NK28Outline  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  861AutoList1        8TW62AutoList1  X   &  X`&     )P P X`)    8TW63AutoList1     & X`&     )P P X`)    8TW64AutoList1     &X X`&     )P P X`)    8TW65AutoList1  `   & X`&     )P P X`)    8NK66AutoList1  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  8NK67AutoList1  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  8NK68AutoList1  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  421Supreme        4TW22Supreme  X   &  X`&     )P P X`)    4TW23Supreme     & X`&     )P P X`)    4TW24Supreme     &X X`&     )P P X`)    4TW25Supreme  `   & X`&     )P P X`)    4NK26Supreme  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  4NK27Supreme  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  4NK28Supreme  P   ," P X`,    )P P X`)  0;.footer   P P `XXX   P P `:8page number0;.header   P P `XXX   P P `<:endnote refeNecessary & Proper ClauseCommerce ClauseClean Water Act33 U.S.C.  13112 e ]!  _33_ C.F.R._ Ԁ328.3(a)(3)33 C.F.R.  328.3(a)(3)2 a ]!  __33_ԀU.S.C.1362(7)33 U.S.C.  1362(7)2337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) ]!  _UnitedStatesv.Riverside_Bayview_ԀHomes,Inc.,    474U.S.121(1985)MISCELLANEOUS<:footnote ref<h:table of aut   ," P X`, Z   )P P X`)  XXX  :*}8toa heading   XXX  8c6Block Text   X   J@ P " X`?h!$p&( +x-J      )P P X`)    6ll4Body Text     J@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/J      J@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/J:uW8Body Text 2     G=" P " X`!$p&( +x-G .    )P P X`)    :oo}8Body Text 3     MCP P | X`h!$p&( +x-/M      MCP P | X`h!$p&( +x-/M,h*List  , ,"| P | X`,    )P P X`)  XXX  <$w:Inside Addre  XXX  &$1        <xx:Body Text In     J@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/J ,       J@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/J<l:annotation rXXX<$w:annotation t  XXX  &""$2    ,      .,toc 1  h ,  ..!   kX! -    h ,  ..!   kX! -  .tt,toc 2  X!  D X! -  $rX$X  X!  D X! -  $rX$X.\k,toc 3  M ," P X`,  )P P X`)XXX  .\,toc 4   ,"D P D X`,  )P P X`)XXX  .Y,toc 5   ) P X`)  )P P X`)XXX  .Y,toc 6  A ) P X`)  )P P X`)XXX  .Y,toc 7   )8 P 8X`)  )P P X`)XXX  .Y,toc 8   ) P X`)  )P P X`)XXX  .V,toc 9  5 &P X`&  )P P X`)XXX  $35;?CGKOS3A.111111112%2A`Arial_Toc469422222New York1 J_NewYorkv.UnitedStates,505U.S.144(1992)Tenth Amendment2 $_U.S.Const.Amend.XPrintz1 h__Printz_v.UnitedStates,521U.S.898(1997)PrintzSeminole Tribe1 u_SeminoleTribeofFloridav.Florida,    517U.S.44(1996)Alden1 B_Aldenv.Maine,119S.CT.2240(1999)College Sav. Bank1 _College_Sav_.Bankv.FloridaPrepaid_Postsecondary_Ԁ    Educ.Expense_Bd_.,119S.CT.2219(1999)Florida Prepaid1 _FloridaPrepaid_Postsecondary_ԀEduc.Expense_Bd_.    v.College_Sav_.Bank,119_S.Ct_.2199(1999)Gregory1 D_Gregoryv.Ashcroft,501U.S.452(1991)Riverside Bayview1erside Bayview Homes, Inc., 41 e ]!  _Millerv.CityofNewYork,109U.S.385(1883)Miller1 City of New York, 109 U.S. 385, 395-96 1New YorkSeminole Tribe ` ]!  _TheDanielBall,77U.S.(10Wall.)557(1870)_Toc469418109_Toc469418237_Toc469422224Coxe3 <_LetterfromTenchCoxetotheVirginiaCommissioners  atAnnapolis(Sept.13,1786),reprintedin  3TheFoundersConstitution473-74     (P._Kurland_Ԁ&R.Lerner_eds_.,1987)Federalist No. 223 _TheFederalistNo.22(Hamilton)  (C.Rossiter&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)Federalist No. 423 <_TheFederalistNo.42(C.Rossitered.1961)Bartkus1 d__Bartkus_v.Illinois,359U.S.121(1959)Garcia1 _Garciav.SanAntonioMetropolitan_Transpor_Ԅ    _tation_ԀAuthority,469U.S.528(1985)Federalist No. 513 /_TheFederalistNo.51(Madison) Federalist No. 473 /_TheFederalistNo.47(Madison) McCloskey3 _JamesWilson,SpeechatthePennsylvaniaRatifying  Convention(Nov.26,1787),reprintedin  2J.Wilson,TheWorksofJamesWilson770     (RobertGreenMcCloskeyed.,1967)Declaration of Independence2 +_DeclarationofIndependenceJames Wilson3 8_JamesWilson,PennsylvaniaRatifyingConvention,      (Dec.4,1787),reprintedin1TheFounders     Constitution62(P._Kurland_Ԁ&R.Lerner_eds_.,1987)Federalist No. 453 /_TheFederalistNo.45(Madison)MCulloch1 __MCulloch_v.Maryland,    17U.S.(4Wheat.)316(1819)GregoryTenth AmendmentArt. I, Sec. 12 *_U.S.Const.Art.I,Sec.1Art. I, Sec. 82 *_U.S.Const.Art.I,Sec.8MCullochLopez1 G_UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549(1995)Lopez"Atascadero1 __Atascadero_ԀStateHospitalv._Scanlin_,    473U.S.234(1985)GarciaFederalist No. 51&Federalist No. 283 D_TheFederalistNo.28(Hamilton)(J.Cookeed.1961)(FERC1 d__FERC_v.Mississippi,456U.S.742(1982)*Federalist No. 333 0_TheFederalistNo.33(Hamilton)Federalist No. 45-Gibbons1 I_Gibbonsv.Ogden,22U.S.(9Wheat.)1(1824)/E. C. Knight1 q_UnitedStatesv.E.C.KnightCo.,    156U.S.1(1895)1Carter Coal1 J_Carterv.CarterCoalCo.,298U.S.238(1936)The Daniel Ball17 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557 (1870)1_Toc469422225 b ]!  _SouthCarolinav.Georgia,93U.S.4(1876)4South Carolina1 Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, 10 (1876)1 ]!  _UnitedStatesv.Chicago,M.,St.P.&P.R.Co.,    312U.S.592(1941)8Corfield1 __Corfield_v._Coryell_,    6F._Cas_.546(C.C.E.D.Pa.1823)GibbonsCorfieldE. C. Knight=Kidd1 ^__Kidd_v.Pearson,128U.S.1(1888)?The License Cases1 D_TheLicenseCases,46U.S.(5How.)504(1847)ASchecter Poultry1 _A.L.A._Schecter_ԀPoultryCorp.v.UnitedStates,    295U.S.495(1935)CBrown1 M_Brownv.Maryland,25U.S.(12Wheat.)419(1827)The License CasesFMobile Co.1 F_MobileCo.v.Kimball,102U.S.691(1880)HBowman1 F_Bowmanv.RailwayCo.,125U.S.465(1888)JLeisy1 __Leisy_v._Hardin_,135U.S.100(1890)( )  0#<9Xd# L OIn re Rahrer1 W_Inre_Rahrer_,140U.S.545(1891)Carter CoalGarciaLopez6Chicago1tes v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 1Schecter Poultry ]!  _SouthCovington&C.St.R.Co.v.CityofCovington,    235U.S.537(1915)USouth Covington1C. St. R. Co. v. City of Covington1MCullochYJones & Laughlin1 {_N.L.R.B.v.Jones&LaughlinSteelCorp.,    301U.S.1(1937)Schecter Poultry ]!  __Escanaba_Ԁ&LakeMichiganTransp.Co.    v.CityofChicago,107U.S.678(1883)[Escanaba1Lake Michigan Transp. Co. v. City of Ch1XBrzonkala1 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stat1 a ]!  _Missouriv.Illinois.,180U.S.208(1901)^Missouri 1Illinois., 180 U.S. 208 (1901)1 a ]!  _Virginiav.Tennessee,148U.S.503(1893)`Virginia1 Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 518 (1893)1 N ]!  _U.S.Const.,Art.I,Sec.10,cl.3bCompacts Clause2I, Sec. 10, cl. 31 ]!  _WestVirginiaexrel.Dyerv.Sims,    341U.S.22(1951)dWest Virginia1 rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 1 ]!  __Wickard_v._Filburn_,317U.S.111(1942)fWickard1 Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127-28 (1942)1Wickard l ]!  _UnitedStatesv.Wilson,133F.3d251(4thCir.1997)i Wilson1tes v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 11 6 ]!  _LeslieSaltCo.v.UnitedStates,55F.3d1388(9thCir.),    cert.deniedsubnom.,_Cargill_,Inc.v.     UnitedStates,516U.S.955(1995)kLeslie Salt1. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388 (91 ]!  __Cargill_,Inc.v.UnitedStates,516U.S.955(1995)mCargill1nc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 955 (19951 j ]!  _R.Berger,Federalism:TheFounders'Design148-51(1987)oBerger3, Federalism: The Founders' Design 148-51 3 ]!  _R.Bork,TheTemptingofAmerica:ThePolitical    SeductionoftheLaw56-57(1990)qBork3, The Tempting of America: The Political Sedu3 ]!  _R.Epstein,ForbiddenGrounds:TheCaseAgainst    EmploymentDiscriminationLaws139(1992)sEpstein3, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Empl3 ]!  _L._Graglia_,UnitedStatesv.Lopez:JudicialReviewUnder    TheCommerceClause,74_Tex_.L.Rev.719(1996)uGraglia3, United States v. Lopez: Judicial Review 3 ]!  _C._Sunstein_,Congress,ConstitutionalMoments,andthe    CostBenefitState,48Stan.L.Rev.247(1996)wSunstein3, Congress, Constitutional Moments, and t3 ]!  _B.Ackerman,LiberatingAbstraction,    59U.Chi.L.Rev.317(1992)yAckerman3, Liberating Abstraction, 59 U. Chi. L3 ]!  _L.Tribe,AmericanConstitutionalLaw,    Vol.1(3ded.2000){Tribe3, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, p. 833 ]!  _G._Gunther_Ԁ&K.Sullivan,ConstitutionalLaw    (13thed.1997)}Gunther3 & K. Sullivan, Constitutional Law 191 (133 ]!P P      _C *,./13 + 3 C   T=n*Gddd Xdd Xdd XP P ,|dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,dd +  1A  1% )   No.991178 C9* d" d A Cdl  `?+ 4 <DL!X?$VX$XInThe l  #$XX$V{# XXX$XiXXSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates%  %B%  %`#$K i# #$XX $K# 2(6 " 2 9/!" 9 = ,!" = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = 9/! "  9 9/! " 9 ?5& "   ?SolidWasteAgencyofNorthernCookCounty .$0 " .% - Petitioner, !  3 !  8   % 8  %v. %8 " %  8   " 8  "% 0 UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineersetal, .$ " .% 2 Respondents. 2(@ 3 2 9/!" 9 = ,!" = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = 9/!"  9 9/!" 9 ?5&"   ?% 5 OnWritofCertioraritotheUnitedStates R CourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuit 2(B" 2 9/!" 9 = ,! " = = ,!!"  = = ,!""  = = ,!#"  = 9/!$"  9 9/!%" 9 ?5&&"   ?% ? BriefofAmicusCuriaeTheClaremontInstitute T' CenterforConstitutionalJurisprudenceInSupportofPetitioner 2(4)" 2 9/!*" 9 = ,!+" = = ,!,"  = = ,!-"  = = ,!."  = 9/!/"  9 9/!0" 9 C9&1"   C 9/!F2" 9 9/!F3" 9 9/!F4" 9 9/!F5" 9 9/!F6" 9 9/!F7" 9 9/!F8" 96,*F9"   6(hP P ('P X" XX'*@\dd|dd |^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^dd GP 8P 8, +  ' 59 '$V$X% I JohnC.Eastman 5: TheClaremontInstitutèCenterforConstitu q < tionalJurisprudence (;!= (% Q 250W.FirstSt.,Suite330Claremont,CA91711(909)6216825,"#@ 0 ,% J EdwinMeeseIII ,"5A ,ЀCounselofRecord B %  214MassachusettsAve.,N.E.Washington,D.C.20002(202)5464400#$XX$V# $"]E 0 $"c#F  " $F =n =/ =  (hP 8P 8(C *,./13 +  *,./13C K8XXdd8M@ii!  QUESTIONPRESENTED     ff1.0 " Whetherthefederalgovernmentexceedsitsconstitutional   authorityto RegulateCommerceAmongtheStateswhenitexerciseswhatisessentiallyapolicepowertoassertregulatoryjurisdictionoverisolatedintrastatewaterssolelybecausethosewatersserveashabitatformigratorybirds. " "     M M8XXdXXd8LK M  ff[  @"  TABLEOFCONTENTS    ; Page    6P X" | ,$XP X" X6p   H  Hm8 " P   QUESTIONPRESENTED#PP>.(" " #_i_Hm݌ x  Ќ  H  H`8 " P   TABLEOFCONTENTS#=.LL'" " #iiH`{݌  8 Ќ  H  H!8 " P   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#<.``*" " #iiiH!<݌ H Ќ  H  H8 " P   INTERESTOFAMICUSCURIAE#$$>./" " #1H݌   Ќ  H  H8 " P   SUMMARYOFARGUMENT#$$>.**)" " #3H݌ p  Ќ  H  Hp8 " P   ARGUMENT#$$>." " #5Hp݌   Ќ  8 " 0| " "  " 0| | |  " I.0 | | InInterpretingtheCleanWaterActtoCoverWaters @  UtilizedbyMigratoryBirds,theCorpsHasIgnoredthePrincipleofEnumeratedPowers,aPrincipleWhichtheFoundersBelievedtoBeEssentialtoLiberty.#$$>.XX$  #5ӈ  8 " 0| " "  " II.0 | | TheMigratoryBirdRuleIsNeitheraRegulationof h CommerceNoraNecessaryandProperMeansofGivingEffecttoaRegulationofCommerce.#=.E  #11 ӈ H  "  | A.8 Asoriginallyconceived,Congressspower X undertheCommerceClausewaslimitedtotheregulationofinterstatetrade.#=.: 0 0#11,"ӈ 8  "  | B. 8 EvenundertheexpandedviewoftheCom  merceClausetakeninthiscourtsmoderneraprecedents,themigratorybirdruleexceedstheouterlimitsofthepoweraffordedtoCongress#=.I 0 0#17H#ӈ p"   "  | C. 8 Theaggregationprincipleof_Wickard_v. #0" А_Filburn_shouldberepudiated,inorderto $ # АremovefromCongressandtheregulatoryagenciestheremotely_colorable_Ԁclaimtounconstitutionalassertionsofpowerthatitprovides.#=.  L 0 0#23$ӈ '& CONCLUSION=.XX 25 a ӈ  )X ( @   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES '    Cases;Page         md'  A.L.A._Schecter_ԀPoultryCorp.v.UnitedStates, h   " 295U.S.495(1935)hh5.*13,15,18''݌ X  Ќ    (  Aldenv.Maine,119S.CT.2240(1999):.<3,21()݌  Ќ    )  Arizonav.Evans,514U.S.1(1995)$$>.98))݌ X Ќ    i*  _Atascadero_ԀStateHospitalv._Scanlin_, T  " 473U.S.234(1985)$$>.*8i**݌ D  Ќ    +  Baileyv.Holland,126F.2d317(4thCir.1942)=.>>E16++݌   Ќ    j,  Baldwinv.FishandGame_Comm'n_ԀofMont., D   " 436U.S.371(1978)=.*14j,,݌ 4  Ќ    -  _Bartkus_v.Illinois,359U.S.121(1959)$$>.>5--݌ 0  Ќ    h.  Bowmanv.RailwayCo.,125U.S.465(1888)=.@13h..݌  Ќ    ./  BoyScoutsofAmericav.Dale,120S.Ct.2446(2000)$$>.rrK2./I/݌ 0 Ќ    /  Brownv.Maryland,25U.S.(12Wheat.)419(1827)=.G13/0݌ , Ќ    0  _Brzonkala_Ԁv.VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandState   " University,169F.3d820,840(4thCir.1999), p  " _affd_Ԁsubnom,UnitedStatesv.Morrison, `  " 120S.Ct.1740(2000)=.LL-2200݌ P Ќ    2  CaliforniaDemocraticPartyv.Jones,    " 120S.Ct.2402(2000)$$>.LL-222݌ ! Ќ    3  CampsNewfound/_Owatonna_v.TownofHarrison, "@  " Maine,520U.S.564(1997)=.11633݌ #0 Ќ    4  _Cargill_,Inc.v.UnitedStates,516U.S.955(1995)=.I2344݌ ,% Ќ    5  Carterv.CarterCoalCo.,298U.S.238(1936)hh5.FFD10,14,2355݌ & Ќ    6  College_Sav_.Bankv.FloridaPrepaid_Postsecondary_Ԁ ',  " Educ.Expense_Bd_.,119S.CT.2219(1999):.@3,2166݌ (  Ќ    8  _Corfield_v._Coryell_,   " 6F._Cas_.546(_C.C.E.D.Pa_.1823)=.712838݌   Ќ    9  _Escanaba_Ԁ&LakeMichiganTransp.Co.  D  " v.CityofChicago,107U.S.678(1883)=.>2199݌  4 Ќ    :  _FERC_v.Mississippi,456U.S.742(1982)$$>.>9::݌ 0  Ќ    ;  FloridaPrepaid_Postsecondary_ԀEduc.Expense_Bd_.   " v.College_Sav_.Bank,119_S.Ct_.2199(1999):.B3,21;;݌ t Ќ    4=  Garciav.SanAntonioMetropolitan_Transpor_Ԅ    " _tation_ԀAuthority,469U.S.528(1985)hh4.=6,8,9,144=O=݌   Ќ    >  Gibbonsv.Ogden,22U.S.(9Wheat.)1(1824)6.((C10,12-17>>݌  d  Ќ    ]?  Gregoryv.Ashcroft,501U.S.452(1991)9.^^>4,8-9]?x?݌ `  Ќ    %@  HoffmanHomes,Inc.v.EPA,    " 999F.2d256(7thCir.1993)=.311%@@@݌   Ќ    !A  Inre_Rahrer_,140U.S.545(1891)=.713!A.NN16__݌ L Ќ  U.S.Const.Art.I,Sec.1$$>.08    _  U.S.Const.Art.I,Sec.8$$>.08_`݌ L  Ќ  U.S.Const.Art.I,sec.8,cl.3\\9.7passim H  U.S.Const.Art.I,sec.8,cl.18\\9.8passim   U.S.Const.Art.I,Sec.10,cl.3=.::822 H    a  U.S.Const.Amend.X8.^^*3,4,8aa݌ D  Ќ    Rb  U.S.Const.Amend.XI\\;.+3,4Rbmb݌   Ќ    b  \bc݌̌  Miscellaneous  @ 6    c  B.Ackerman,LiberatingAbstraction,   " 59U.Chi.L.Rev.317(1992)=.""724cc݌  Ќ  0 " P R.Berger,Federalism:TheFounders' 0 Design(1987)#=.$" " #24     Ie  R.Bork,TheTemptingofAmerica:ThePolitical !t  " SeductionoftheLaw(1990)=.324Iede݌  "d Ќ    Mf  LetterfromTench_Coxe_ԀtotheVirginiaCommissioners `#  " atAnnapolis(Sept.13,1786),reprintedin  " 3TheFoundersConstitution473-74 @%  " (P._Kurland_Ԁ&R.Lerner_eds_.,1987)$$>.ff:5Mfhf݌ 0& Ќ    Qh  R.Epstein,ForbiddenGrounds:TheCaseAgainst '   " EmploymentDiscriminationLaws139(1992)=.@24Qhlh݌ t( Ќ    li  TheFederalistNo.22(Hamilton)   " (C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)$$>.tt;5lii݌   Ќ    j  TheFederalistNo.28(Hamilton)(J.Cookeed.1961)$$>.J9jj݌  D Ќ    k  TheFederalistNo.33(Hamilton)  " (C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)$$>.tt;9kk݌ 0  Ќ    l  TheFederalistNo.39(Madison)  " (C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)$$>.tt;7ll݌ t Ќ    "n  TheFederalistNo.42(C._Rossiter_Ԁed.1961)$$>.00B5"n=n݌   Ќ    n  TheFederalistNo.45(Madison)  " (C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)\\;.tt;7,9no݌  d  Ќ    Mp  TheFederalistNo.47(Madison)  " (C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)$$>.tt;6Mphp݌ P  Ќ    q  TheFederalistNo.51(Madison)  " (C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)\\;.tt;6,9qq݌   Ќ  L._Graglia_,UnitedStatesv.Lopez:JudicialReviewUnder @  " TheCommerceClause,74_Tex_.L.Rev.719(1996)=.,,F24 0 G._Gunther_Ԁ&K.Sullivan,ConstitutionalLaw ,  " (13thed.1997)=.&25 t   t  C._Sunstein_,Congress,ConstitutionalMoments,andthe p  " CostBenefitState,48Stan.L.Rev.247(1996)=.F24tt݌ ` Ќ    u  L.Tribe,AmericanConstitutionalLaw,    " Vol.1(3ded.2000)=.vv+24uu݌   Ќ    v  JamesWilson,PennsylvaniaRatifyingConvention,   !P  " (Dec.4,1787),reprintedin1TheFounders "@  " Constitution62(P._Kurland_Ԁ&R.Lerner_eds_.,1987)$$>.22J7vv݌ #0 Ќ    x  JamesWilson,SpeechatthePennsylvaniaRatifying  " Convention(Nov.26,1787),reprintedin  " 2J.Wilson,TheWorksofJamesWilson770  'd  " (RobertGreen_McCloskey_Ԁed.,1967)$$>.96xx݌ 'T Ќ  c  P)  T  % U *e dd @\P P e,|dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,dd +  1A  1No.991178 C9* d" d A C$V$XInThe  ` #$XX$V|# XXX$XiXXSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates#XXi}##$XXXX|#  2(6 " 2 9/!" 9 = ,!" = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = 9/! "  9 9/! " 9 ?5& "   ?SolidWasteAgencyofNorthernCookCounty .$0 " .Petitioner, !  3 !  8   % 8  %v. %8 " %  8   " 8  "UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineersetal, .$ " .Respondents. 2(@ 3 2 9/!" 9 = ,!" = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = = ,!"  = 9/!"  9 9/!" 9 C9&"   C 9/!R" 9 9/!R" 9 9/!R" 9 9/!R " 9 9/!R!" 9 9/!R"" 9 9/!R#" 96,*R$"   6 md*d d|dd |^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^^dd ^dd  P P ,|dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,^dd ,dd +  # |$ #OnWritofCertioraritotheUnitedStates CourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuit 2((&" 2 9/!T'" 9 = ,!T(" = = ,!T)"  = = ,!T*"  = = ,!T+"  = 9/!T,"  9 9/!T-" 9 ?5&T."   ? BriefofAmicusCuriaeTheClaremontInstitute :/ CenterforConstitutionalJurisprudenceInSupportofPetitioner 2(1" 2 9/!F2" 9 = ,!F3" = = ,!F4"  = = ,!F5"  = = ,!F6"  = 9/!F7"  9 9/!F8" 9 C9&F9"   C 9/!,:" 9 9/!,;" 9 9/!,<" 9 9/!,=" 9 9/!,>" 9 9/!,?" 9 9/!,@" 96,*,A"    6 md@   INTERESTOFAMICUSCURIAE 3 7#  1      ׈ `A ^s$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  ^s֎  9`  XP X" | ,$X9TheClaremontInstitutefortheStudyofStatesmanshipand  B  PoliticalPhilosophyisanonprofiteducationalfoundation !CB whosestatedmissionisto restoretheprinciplesofthe&   AmericanFoundingtotheirrightfulandpreeminentauthorityinournationallife,includingtheprinciples,atissueinthis' case,thatWethePeopledelegatedtothenationalgovernmentonlycertain,specificallyenumeratedpowersandthatthebulkofsovereignpower,includingthepolicepoweratissuehere,wasreservedtotheStatesortothepeople.^s֎M݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  ^s$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  ^s  TheInstitutepursuesitsmissionthroughacademicre  search,publications,scholarlyconferences,andtheselectiveappearanceasamicuscuriaeincasesofconstitutionalsignificance.Ofparticularrelevancehere,theInstitutehasaCenterforLocalGovernment,whichpromotesthetheoryandpracticeofK.` hp x (#`  XKselfgovernment,emphasizingthethemesoflimited,constitutionalgovernment,federalism,propertyrights,andenergeticcitizenship.Inaddition,theInstitutehaspublishedextensivelyabouttheconstitutionallimitationsonthepowersdelegatedtothenationalgovernment,includingabookeditedbyGordonJonesandInstituteSeniorFellowJohnMarinientitledTheImperialCongress:CrisisintheSeparationof D Powers  .^s݌ 4 Ќ$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  ^s$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  ^s7  Inordertofurtheradvanceitsmission,theClaremont 0 Institutein1999establishedaninhousepublicinterestlawfirm,theCenterforConstitutionalJurisprudence.TheCenterspurposeistofurtherthemissionoftheClaremontInstitutethroughstrategiclitigation,includingthefilingofamicuscuriaebriefsincasessuchasthisthatinvolveissuesofconstitutionalsignificancegoingtotheheartofthefoundingprinciplesofthisnation.TheCenterforConstitutionalJurisprudencehaspreviouslyparticipatedasamicuscuriaebeforethisCourtin z UnitedStatesv.Morrison,120S.Ct.1740(2000), | Boy $ ScoutsofAmericav.Dale,120S.Ct.2446(2000),and %  ~ CaliforniaDemocraticPartyv.Jones,120S.Ct.2402(2000).^s7݌ & Ќ$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  ,^s$XXX$X$XXX$X ,,  ^s  TheClaremontInstitute,throughitsCenterforConstitu ',  tionalJurisprudence,seekstoelaborateontheargumentsthathavebeenmadebyPetitionerregardingthescopeofthepower ) !" delegatedtoCongressundertheCommerceClause.TheClaremontInstitutebelievesthatitsscholarlyexpertiseaboutthetheoreticalandhistoricaloriginsoftheAmericanconstitutionalsystemofgovernmentwillaidthisCourtinevaluatingwhethertheassertionofjurisdictionmadebytheArmyCorpsofEngineersoverwhollyintrastatewatersmerelybecauseofthesometimepresenceofmigratorybirdsexceedsCongresssauthoritytoregulatecommerceamongthestates.^sY݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X ,,    &  3P P X`X3%   SUMMARYOFARGUMENT %     6"P P | X`P P X6  Overthepastdecade,thisCourthasreinvigoratedtheFoundersvisionofaconstitutionalsystembasedonadivisionofthepeoplessovereignpowersbetweenthenationalandstategovernments.In h NewYorkv.UnitedStates,505U.S.144,   15657(1992),forexample,theCourtrecogni  zedthattheprincipleofreservedpowersunderlyingthe  TenthAmendment  servesasabarriertotheexerciseofpowerbyCongress.In    _Printz_v.UnitedStates,521U.S.898,92324(1997)  ,theCourt p recognizedthattheprinciplewasgroundednotsomuchinthetextoftheTenthAmendmentbutintheword properofthe c NecessaryandProperclause,asinformedbytheoverallstructureoftheConstitutionandthenumerousclausesthatrecognizetheretentionofsovereignpowersbytheStates.Thissameideaofstatesovereigntyhasbeengivenvoiceintheparallelcasesarisingunderthe e EleventhAmendment:Seminole X TribeofFloridav.Florida,517U.S.44(1996)  ;Aldenv. H Maine,119S.Ct.2240(1999)  ;College_Sav_.Bankv.Florida  8 Prepaid_Postsecondary_ԀEduc.Expense_Bd_.,119S.CT.2219 !( (1999)  ;FloridaPrepaid_Postsecondary_ԀEduc.Expense_Bd_.v. " College_Sav_.Bank,119S.CT.2199(1999)  .'ğ # YetfortheFounders,thedivisionofsovereignpowerswasnotdesignedsimplyorevenprimarilytoinsulatethestatesfromfederalpower.Itwasdesignedsothatthestatesmightserveasanindependentcheckonthefederalgovernment,preventingitfromexpandingitspowersagainstordinarycitizens.UnitedStatesv. a Morrison,120S.Ct.1740,1753n.7 ) !" (2000);   UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549,552,582(1995).  Anditwasdesignedsothatdecisionsaffectingthedaytodayactivitiesofordinarycitizenswouldcontinuetobemadeatalevelofgovernmentcloseenoughtothepeoplesoastobetrulysubjecttothepeoplescontrol.SeeGregoryv.Ashcroft,501 h  U.S.452,458(1991)  .The  Tenthand f EleventhamendmentsaresimplyexamplesofwhattheFoundersaccomplishedprincipallythroughthemainbodyoftheConstitutionitself.Congresswasdelegatedonlyspecificallyenumeratedpowers(andthenecessarymeansofgivingeffecttothosepowers)oversubjectsoftrulynationalconcern;itwasnotgivenageneralpolicepowertocontroltheordinary,localactivitiesofthecitizenry._ӌ$XXX$X$XXX$X ,,  _ӌ  Ininterpretingthefederal j CleanWaterActtocoverwaters <  whichareorwouldbeusedbymigratorybirdswhichcrossstatelines,theUnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineershastakenthestatutewellbeyondtheconstitutionalboundsofthe n CommerceClause.TheCorpseffortstoregulateanyintrastatepondwheremigratorybirdshappentoalightisnotaregulationofcommerce,anditisnotalawthatgiveseffecttosomeregulationofcommerce(muchlessa necessaryand properone).ToconstruetheCommerceClauseasbroadlyastheCorpsdoeshereistorendermeaninglesstheprimarycheckonfederalpowerenvisionedbythefounders"thedoctrineoflimited,enumeratedpowers.Moreover,byessentiallypreemptinglandusedecisionsofall50statesandtheirthousandsofmunicipalsubdivisions,theCorpshashereintrudeduponthepowersreservedtotheStatesinawaythatmakestheintrusionsatissueinNewYork  v.UnitedStatesandSeminoleTribe  look L# likechildsplay._ӌd݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X ,,   %  &<  ,    ) ! ЇARGUMENT %  %%  %%   .    .K2+  I  .3  0 |   InInterpretingtheCleanWaterActtoCoverWaters  T UtilizedbyMigratoryBirds,theCorpsHasIgnoredthePrincipleofEnumeratedPowers,aPrincipleWhichtheFoundersBelievedtoBeEssentialtoLiberty.%;B  CӴ.K nԌ | |  Ќ  _ӌ$XXX$X$XXX$X ,  _ӌS  Z@,4 <DL!"&)\+P P ,XZ mdmdWhentheframersofourConstitutionmetinPhiladelphia  x in1787,itwaswidelyacknowledgedthatastrongernationalgovernmentthanexistedundertheArticlesofConfederationwasnecessaryifthenewgovernmentoftheUnitedStateswasgoingtosurvive.TheContinentalCongresscouldnothonoritscommitmentsundertheTreatyofParis;itcouldnotmeetitsfinancialobligations;itcouldnotcounteractthecripplingtradebarriersthatwerebeingenactedbytheseveralstatesagainsteachother;anditcouldnoteveninsurethatitscitizens,especiallythoselivingonthewesternfrontier,weresecureintheirlivesandproperty.See,e.g.,LetterfromTench_Coxe_Ԁto  theVirginiaCommissionersatAnnapolis(Sept.13,1786),reprintedin3TheFoundersConstitution47374(P. ` _Kurland_Ԁ&R.Lerner_eds_.,1987)  Ԁ(notingthatdutiesimposedby P thestatesuponeachotherwere asgreatinmanyinstancesasthoseimposedonforeignArticles);TheFederalistNo.22, 0 at14445(Hamilton)(C._Rossiter_Ԁ&C._Kesler_Ԁ_eds_.,1999)  x (referring  Ԁto [_t]he_ԀinterferingandunneighborlyregulationsinsomeStates,whichwere serioussourcesofanimosityanddiscordbetweentheStates);NewYork  ,505U.S.,at158( The H defectofpowerintheexistingConfederacytoregulatethecommercebetweenitsseveralmembers[has]beenclearlypointedoutbyexperience")(quotingTheFederalistNo.42,p.267(C._Rossiter_Ԁed.1961)  )._ӌSʵ݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X ,    Q+ P <DL!,X4X"&XQ    Z@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/P XZ ,  ޾  f@,4 <DL!"&)\+P X| X!XfButtheframerswereequallycognizantofthefactthatthe %\ deficienciesoftheArticlesofConfederationexistedbydesign,duetoagenuineandalmostuniversalfearofastrong,centralizedgovernment.See,e.g.,Bartkusv.PeopleofStateof ',  Illinois,359U.S.121,137(1959)  Ԁ( themenwhowrotethe ( ! ConstitutionaswellasthecitizensofthememberStatesofthe ) !" Confederationwerefearfulofthepowerofcentralizedgovernmentandsoughttolimititspower);Garciav.SanAntonia   MetropolitanTransportationAuthority,469U.S.528,56869   (1985)  Ԁ(Powell,J.,dissenting,joinedbyChiefJusticeBurgerandJusticesRehnquistandOConnor).OurforebearshadnotsuccessfullyprosecutedthewaragainsttheKingstyrannymerelytoerectinitsplaceanotherformoftyranny.޾݌̌   ,  6P X,X4X"&X6    ,Thecentralproblemfacedbytheconventiondelegates,therefore,wastocreateagovernmentstrongenoughtomeetthethreatstothesafetyandhappinessofthepeople,yetnotsostrongastoitselfbecomeathreattothepeoplesliberty.See l  TheFederalistNo.51,at322(Madison)  .Theframersdrew \  onthebestpoliticaltheoristsofhumanhistorytocraftagovernmentthatwasmostconducivetothatend.Theideaofseparationofpowers,forexample,evidentintheverystructureoftheConstitution,wasdrawnfrom_Montesquieu_,outofrecognitionthatthe accumulationofallpowers,legislative,executive,andjudiciary,inthesamehands...mayjustlybepronouncedtheverydefinitionoftyranny.TheFederalist D No.47,at301(Madison)   . 4 Buttheframersaddedtheirowncontributiontothescienceofpolitics,aswell.Inwhatcanonlybedescribedasaradicalbreakwithpastpractice,theFoundersrejectedtheideathatthegovernmentwassovereignandindivisible.Instead,theFounderscontendedthatthepeoplethemselvesweretheultimatesovereign,see,e.g.,JamesWilson,Speechatthe  8 PennsylvaniaRatifyingConvention(Nov.26,1787),reprinted !( in2J.Wilson,TheWorksofJamesWilson770(R. " А_McCloskey_Ԁed.,1967)   ,andcoulddelegateallorpartoftheirsovereignpowers,toasinglegovernmentortomultiplegovernments,as,intheirview,was mostlikelytoeffecttheirSafetyandHappiness,DeclarationofIndependence,2   .Theimportanceofthedivisionofsovereignpowerswashighlighted byJamesWilsoninthePennsylvaniaratifyingconvention: `(!  , , ,W=,4 <DL T$&)\+P XW&             IconsiderthepeopleoftheUnitedStatesasformingonegreatcommunity,andIconsiderthepeopleofthe'differentStatesasformingcommunitiesagainonalesserscale.Fromthisgreatdivisionofthepeopleintodistinctcommunitiesitwillbefoundnecessarythatdifferentproportionsoflegislativepowersshouldbegiventothegovernments,accordingtothenature,numberandmagnitudeoftheirobjects.Unlessthepeopleareconsideredinthesetwoviews,weshallneverbeabletounderstandtheprincipleonwhichthissystemwasconstructed.IviewtheStatesasmadeforthepeopleaswellasbythem,andnotthe \  peopleasmadefortheStates.Thepeople,therefore,havearight,whilstenjoyingtheundeniablepowersofsociety,toformeitherageneralgovernment,orstategovernments,inwhatmannertheyplease;ortoaccommodatethemtooneanother,andbythismeanspreservethemall.This,Isay,istheinherentandunalienablerightofthepeople. , ,f@,4 <DL!"&)\+,4X T$XfJamesWilson,PennsylvaniaRatifyingConvention,(Dec.4,1787),reprintedin1TheFoundersConstitution62.   0   Q+ P <DL!,X4X"&XQ  X  6  X`P X6       XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,Asaresult,itbecameandremainsoneofthemostfunda  mentaltenetsofourconstitutionalsystemofgovernmentthatthesovereignpeopledelegatedtothenationalgovernmentonlycertain,enumeratedpowers,leavingtheresiduumofpowertobeexercisedbythestategovernmentsorbythepeoplethemselves.See,e.g.,TheFederalistNo.39,at256(notingthat 4" thejurisdictionofthefederalgovernment extendstocertainenumeratedobjectsonly,andleavestotheseveralStatesaresiduaryandinviolablesovereigntyoverallotherobjects);TheFederalistNo.45,at29293(Madison)  Ԁ( Thepowers %L delegatedbytheproposedConstitutiontothefederalgovernmentarefewanddefined.ThosewhicharetoremainintheStategovernmentsarenumerousandindefinite);_MCulloch_ ( ! v.Maryland,17U.S.(4Wheat.)316,421(1819)  Ԁ(Marshall, ) !"    TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3'T(   C.J.)( Weadmit,asallmustadmit,thatthepowersofthe  governmentarelimitedandthatitslimitsarenottobetranscended);Gregory  ,501U.S.at457( TheConstitution   createdaFederalGovernmentoflimitedpowers).O݌̌   6P X,X4X"&X6 ,   E+ P <DL!P XE    Z@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/P XZ ,    f@,4 <DL!"&)\+P X| X!XfThisdivisionofsovereignpowersbetweenthetwogreat  $ levelsofgovernmentwasnotsimplyaconstitutionaladdon,bywayoftheTenthAmendment.SeeU.S.Const.Amend.X    ( ThepowersnotdelegatedtotheUnitedStatesbytheConstitution,norprohibitedbyittotheStates,arereservedtotheStatesrespectively,ortothepeople).Rather,itisinherentinthedoctrineofenumeratedpowersembodiedinthemainbodyoftheConstitutionitself.SeeU.S.Const.Art.I,Sec.1  Ԁ( All \  legislativePowershereingrantedshallbevestedinaCongress L  oftheUnitedStates(emphasisadded));Art.I,Sec.8  Ԁ(enumeratingpowerssogranted);seealso_MCulloch_  ,17U.S.(4 ,  Wheat.),at405( Thisgovernmentisacknowledgedbyall,tobeoneofenumeratedpowers.Theprinciple,thatitcanexerciseonlythepowersgrantedtoit,...isnowuniversallyadmitted);UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549,552(1995)   D ( Westartwithfirstprinciples.TheConstitutioncreatesaFederalGovernmentofenumeratedpowers).݌̌   ,  6P X,X4X"&X6      Z@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/P XZ ,    f@,4 <DL!"&)\+P X| X!XfTheconstitutionallymandateddivisionofthepeoplessovereignpowersbetweenfederalandstategovernmentswasnotdesignedtoprotectstategovernmentsasanendinitself,butrather wasadoptedbytheFramerstoensureprotectionofourfundamentalliberties.Lopez   ,514U.S.,at552(quoting  8 Gregory  ,501U.S.,at458);seealso a Morrison,120S._Ct_.,at !( 1753n.7( Aswehaverepeatedlynoted,theFramerscraftedthefederalsystemofgovernmentsothatthepeople'srightswouldbesecuredbythedivisionofpower(citing r Arizonav. $ Evans,514U.S.1,30(1995)(_Ginsburg_,J.,dissenting); %   Gregory,501U.S.,at45859; s _Atascadero_ԀStateHospitalv. & _Scanlin_,473U.S.234,242(1985)_ ! _Ԁ(quoting # Garcia,469U.S., p'  at572(Powell,J.,dissenting))); # Garcia,469U.S.,at582 `(! (OConnor,J.,dissenting)( Thisdivisionofauthority,accord P) " ingtoMadison,wouldproduceefficientgovernmentand @*!# protecttherightsofthepeople)(citingTheFederalistNo.  51 $ ,pp.350351(Madison)(J.Cookeed.1961)). JustastheseparationandindependenceofthecoordinatebranchesoftheFederalGovernmentservetopreventtheaccumulationofexcessivepowerinanyonebranch,ahealthybalanceofpowerbetweentheStatesandtheFederalGovernmentwillreducetheriskoftyrannyandabusefromeitherfront.Lopez   ,514U.S., H at582(quoting  Gregory,501U.S.,at458);Gregory,501U.S., 8 at459(quotingTheFederalistNo.28,pp.18081(Hamilton) ( (J.Cookeed.1961) % );id.(quotingTheFederalistNo.51 $ ,p. p  323(Madison) $ (J.Cookeed.1961));seealsoGarcia # ,469U.S., `  at581(OConnor,J.,dissenting)( [TheFramers]envisionedarepublicwhosevitalitywasassuredbythediffusionofpowernotonlyamongthebranchesoftheFederalGovernment,butalsobetweentheFederalGovernmentandtheStates(citing_FERC_v.Mississippi,456U.S.742,790(1982)_ ' _Ԁ(OConnor,J.,  dissenting)); # id.,at571(Powell,J.,dissenting)( TheFramers  believedthattheseparatesphereofsovereigntyreservedtotheStateswouldensurethattheStateswouldserveasaneffectivecounterpoisetothepoweroftheFederalGovernment).p݌̌   ,  6P X,X4X"&X6      Z@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/P XZ ,    f@,4 <DL!"&)\+P X| X!XfWhenCongress(orafederalagency,insupposedrelianceonanactofCongress)actsbeyondthescopeofitsenumeratedpowers,therefore,itdoesmorethansimplyintrudeuponthesovereignpowersofthestates;itactswithoutconstitutionalauthority,thatis,tyrannically,andplacesourlibertiesatrisk.See,e.g.,TheFederalistNo.33,at204(Hamilton) ) Ԁ(noting |  thatlawsenactedbytheFederalGovernment whicharenot l! pursuanttoitsconstitutionalpowers,butwhichareinvasions \" oftheresiduaryauthoritiesofthesmallersocieties...willbemerelyactsofusurpation,andwilldeservetobetreatedassuch).i݌̌   ,  6P X,X4X"&X6      Z@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/P XZ ,  [  f@,4 <DL!"&)\+P X| X!XfForemostamongthepowers  notdelegatedtothefederal & governmentwasthepowertoregulatethehealth,safety,andmoralsofthepeople"thesocalledpolicepower.See,e.g., `(! TheFederalistNo.45 + ,at29293(Madison)( Thepowers P) " reservedtotheseveralStateswillextendtoalltheobjects @*!# which,intheordinarycourseofaffairs,concernthelives,liberties,andpropertiesofthepeople,andtheinternalorder,improvement,andprosperityoftheState);Gibbonsv.Ogden,   22U.S.(9Wheat.)1,203(1824) , Ԁ( NodirectgeneralpowerovertheseobjectsisgrantedtoCongress;and,consequently,theyremainsubjecttoStatelegislation);UnitedStatesv.E.C. X  KnightCo.,156U.S.1,11(1895) . Ԁ( Itcannotbedeniedthatthe H powerofastatetoprotectthelives,health,andpropertyofitscitizens,andtopreservegoodorderandthepublicmorals,thepowertogovernmenandthingswithinthelimitsofitsdominion,isapoweroriginallyandalwaysbelongtothestates,notsurrenderedbythemtothegeneralgovernment).Thepowersatissueinthiscase"thegrantingoflandusepermitsandtheregulationofwhollyintrastatewaters"arewithinthecoreofthepolicepowersreservedtothestatesortothepeople.[݌̌   ,  6P X,X4X"&X6      Z@P P | X`!$p&( +x-/P XZ ,    f@,4 <DL!"&)\+P X| X!XfCongressdoesretainsomemeasureofdiscretiontochoosethemeansnecessaryforgivingeffecttoitsenumeratedpowers,ofcourse,seeinfra,at1920,butitcannotuseitsdiscretionary D powerovermeansinfurtheranceofendsnotgrantedtoit.AsChiefJusticeMarshallnotedin_MCulloch_  Ԁv.Maryland: $  [_S]hould_Ԁcongress,underthepretextofexecutingitspowers,passlawsfortheaccomplishmentofobjectsnotintrustedtothe[national]government;itwouldbecomethepainfuldutyofthistribunal...tosay,thatsuchanactwasnotthelawoftheland.17U.S.(4Wheat.),at423;seealsoCarterv.CarterCoalCo., |  298U.S.238,317(1936) 0 Ԁ(Hughes,C.J.,separateopinion)( Congressmaynotusethisprotective[commerce]authorityasapretextfortheexertionofpowertoregulateactivitiesandrelationswithinthestateswhichaffectinterstatecommerceonlyindirectly).Because,asdescribedbelow,Congresssattempts,asinterpretedbytheCorpsofEngineers,tolinkthevintageexerciseofthestatepolicepowersatissueheretoitspowertoregulateinterstatecommerceispretextofthehighestorder,ChiefJusticeMarshallsadmonitionisdirectlyonpoint:ItisthedutyofthisCourttosaythattheinterpretationofthe )4!# CleanWaterActpropoundedbytheCorpsofEngineersisnotthelawoftheland. ݌   Ќ   ,  6P X,X4X"&X6  md  & h E+ P <DL!P XE  ,  <"| P | X`P X<     h  dP  D md  % 3 II. | TheMigratoryBirdRuleIsNeitheraRegulationof P  CommerceNoraNecessaryandProperMeansofGivingEffecttoaRegulationofCommerce.%3Yh Ԍ̌ ,  *P X| P ,X*    X   Z@4,4` <DL!"&)\+P XZ C $ *,./13C  2  A  .3   Asoriginallyconceived,Congressspowerunderthe  CommerceClausewaslimitedtotheregulationofinterstatetrade.'h   Xf=, <DL!"&)\+4 ,, X"&Xf , InupholdingtheCorps migratorybirdruleinterpretation   oftheCleanWaterAct,theSeventhCircuitCourtofAppealsmadeatellingconflationoftermsthatdemonstratesjusthowfarremovedfromtheFoundersconceptionoftheCommercepowertheCorpsclaimreallyis.TheCleanWaterAct,asinterpretedbytheCorpstocoverwhollyintrastatewatersvisitedonoccasionbymigratorybirds,isapermissibleexerciseofCongressspowertoregulatecommerceamongthestates,notedtheSeventhCircuit,because [_t]hroughout_ԀNorthAmerica,millionsofpeopleannuallyspendmorethanabilliondollarsonhunting,trapping,andobservingmigratorybirds,andsomeofthosepeopletravelacrossstatelinestodoso. o 191F.3d,at850(quoting l HoffmanHomes,Inc.v.EPA,999F.2d P 256,261(7thCir.1993).! 7#  2       @  ,  Q+ P <DL!,X X"&XQ  X  6  X`P X6       XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,FortheFounders, commercewastrade,notspendingby < peoplewhohappentohavecrossedstatelines.See,e.g., ,  _Corfield_Ԁv._Coryell_,6F._Cas_.546,550(_C.C.E.D.Pa_.1823) 7  !t (Washington,J.,oncircuit)( Commercewithforeignnations,andamongtheseveralstates,canmeannothingmorethanintercoursewiththosenations,andamongthosestates,forpurposesoftrade,betheobjectofthetradewhatitmay);   Lopez,514U.S.,at585(Thomas,J.,concurring)( Atthetime h  theoriginalConstitutionwasratified, commerceconsistedofselling,buying,andbartering,aswellastransportingforthesepurposes).Indeed,inthefirstmajorcasearisingundertheclausetoreachthisCourt,itwascontestedwhethertheCommerceClauseevenextendedsofarastoinclude navigation.ChiefJusticeMarshall,fortheCourt,heldthatitdid,butevenunderhisdefinition, commercewaslimitedto intercoursebetweennations,andpartsofnations,inallitsbranches. @  Gibbons 9 v.Ogden,22U.S.(9Wheat.)1,190(1824);seealso 0   : _Corfield_,6F._CAS_.,at550( Commerce...amongtheseveral   states...mustincludeallthemeansbywhichitcanbecarriedon,[including]...passageoverlandthroughthestates,wheresuchpassagebecomesnecessarytothecommercialintercoursebetweenthestates).6݌  Ќ   6P X,X4X"&X6 ,       X  6  X`P X6       XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,TheGibbons 9 Courtspecificallyrejectedthenotion that 4 [commerceamongthestates]_comprehend[s_]thatcommerce,whichiscompletelyinternal,whichiscarriedonbetweenmanandmaninaState,orbetweendifferentpartsofthesameState,andwhichdoesnotextendtooraffectotherStates. 9 Gibbons,  22U.S.,at194(quotedin  Morrison,120S._Ct_.,at1753).In  otherwords,forChiefJusticeMarshallandhiscolleagues,theCommerceClausedidnotevenextendtotradecarriedonbetweendifferentpartsofastate.Thenotionthatthepowerto \" regulatecommerceamongthestatesincludedthepowertoregulateotherkindsofbusinessactivitysuchashuntingortrapping(assumingthatthehuntingandtrappingreferencedbytheCourtofAppealswasforbusinessratherthanrecreationalpurposes),therefore,wascompletelyforeigntothem.Anda  'd  fortiori,anyclaimthattheCommerceClauseencompasseda 'T! powertomakelanduseregulationsgoverningwhollyintrastatewatersbecausethosewatersareusedbymigratorybirds,which )4!# mightbehunted,trappedorobservedbypeople,someofwhommighthavetraveledacrossstatelines,wouldhavebeenbeyondthepale.&݌̌   6P X,X4X"&X6 ,     X  6  X`P X6       XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,ThisunderstandingoftheCommerceClausecontinuedfornearlyacenturyandahalf.Manufacturingwasnotincludedinthedefinitionofcommerce,heldtheCourtinUnitedStatesv.   E.C. ; KnightCo.,156U.S.1,12(1895),because Commerce  succeedstomanufacture,andisnotapartofit. ThefactthatanarticleismanufacturedforexporttoanotherStatedoesnotofitselfmakeitanarticleofinterstatecommerce....Id.,at |  13;seealso_Kidd_v.Pearson,128U.S.1,20(1888) < Ԁ(upholding l  astatebanonthemanufactureofliquor,eventhoughmuchoftheliquorsobannedwasdestinedforinterstatecommerce).Neitherwereretailsalesincludedinthedefinitionof commerce.SeeTheLicenseCases,46U.S.(5How.)504(1847) >  ,  (upholdingstatebanonretailsalesofliquor,asnotsubjecttoCongressspowertoregulateinterstatecommerce);seealso  d A.L.A._Schecter_ԀPoultryCorp.v.UnitedStates,295U.S.495, T 542,547(1935) @ Ԁ(invalidatingfederallawregulatinginstateretailsalesofpoultrythatoriginatedoutofstateandfixingthehoursandwagesoftheintrastateemployeesbecausetheactivityrelatedonlyindirectlytocommerce).݌̌   6P X,X4X"&X6 ,     X  6  X`P X6   &    XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,FortheFoundersandfortheCourtswhichdecidedthesecases,regulationofsuchactivitiesasretailsales,manufacturing,andagriculture(aswellashuntingandtrapping),waspartofthepolicepowersreservedtotheStates,notpartofthepowerovercommercedelegatedtoCongress.See,e.g.,E.C. !( Knight, ; Ԁ156U.S.,at12( Thatwhichbelongstocommerceis " withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,butthatwhichdoesnotbelongtocommerceiswithinthejurisdictionofthepolicepoweroftheState)(citingGibbons 9 ,22U.S.(9Wheat.),at % 210;Brownv.Maryland,25U.S.(12Wheat.)419,448(1827) B ; & TheLicenseCases D ,46U.S.(5How.),at599;MobileCo.v. p'  Kimball,102U.S.691(1880 E );Bowmanv.RailwayCo.,125 `(! U.S.465(1888) G ;_Leisy_v._Hardin_,135U.S.100(1890); I ԀInre P) " _Rahrer_,140U.S.545,555(1891) N ); w Baldwinv.FishandGame @*!# _Comm'n_ԀofMont.,436U.S.371(1978).And,astheCourt  notedinE.C.Knight, ; Ԁitwasessentialtothepreservationofthe   statesandthereforetolibertythatthelinebetweenthetwopowersberetained:&'݌̌   6P X,X4X"&X6 ,   E+ P <DL!P XE$XXX$X$XXX$XE+ P <DL!P XE X  6  X`P X6  ,X ,Q=,4 <DL T$&)\+  XQ     .  Itisvitalthattheindependenceofthecommercial  $ powerandofthepolicepower,andthedelimitationbetweenthem,howeversometimesperplexing,shouldalwaysberecognizedandobserved,for,whiletheonefurnishesthestrongestbondofunion,theotherisessentialtothepreservationoftheautonomyoftheStatesasrequiredbyourdualformofgovernment.....}0݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X6P X,4X T$X6 ,   ,  E+ P <DL!P XE  X  6  X`P X6   E3    XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT 156U.S.,at13;seealsoCarterCoal P ,298U.S.,at301(quoting   E.C.Knight) ; ;Garcia Q ,469U.S.,at572(Powell,J.,dissenting,   joinedbyChiefJusticeBurgerandJusticesRehnquistandOConnor)( federaloverreachingundertheCommerceClauseunderminestheconstitutionallymandatedbalanceofpowerbetweentheStatesandtheFederalGovernment,abalancedesignedtoprotectourfundamentalliberties).E33݌̌   6P X,X4X"&X6    E+ P <DL!P XExz$XXX$X$XXX$XE+ P <DL!P XE X  6  X`P X6  XT@,4 <DL!"&)\+  XT ,  xz?7  Whilethesedecisionshavesincebeencriticizedasunduly   formalistic,the formalism"ifitcanbecalledthatatall"ismandatedbythetextoftheConstitutionitself.See,e.g.,Lopez R ,  514U.S.,at553( limitationsonthecommercepowerareinherentintheverylanguageoftheCommerceClause)(citing t Gibbons 9 );id.,at586(Thomas,J.,concurring)( theterm d commercewasusedincontradistinctiontoproductiveactivitiessuchasmanufacturingandagriculture).AnditisaformalismthatwasrecognizedbyChiefJusticeMarshallhimself,eveninthefaceofapolicepowerregulationthathada considerableinfluenceoncommerce:xz?78݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X6P X,X4X"&X6   ,  ,E+ P <DL!P XE$XXX$X$XXX$XE+ P <DL!P XE X  6  X`P X6 , ,X ,Q=,4 <DL T$&)\+  XQ   %=  Theobjectof[state]inspectionlaws,istoimprovethe h% qualityofarticlesproducedbythe_labour_Ԁofacountry;tofitthemforexportation;or,itmaybe,fordomesticuse.Theyactuponthesubjectbeforeitbecomesanarticleofforeigncommerce,orofcommerceamongtheStates,andprepareitforthatpurpose.Theyforma *p!" portionofthatimmensemassoflegislation[reservedtotheStates]....NodirectgeneralpowerovertheseobjectsisgrantedtoCongress;and,consequently,theyremainsubjecttoStatelegislation.%=>݌̌$XXX$X$XXX$X6P X,4X T$X6 ,  , ,   ,   Gibbons 9 ,22U.S.,at203;seealsoid.,at19495( Comprehen  $ siveasthewordamongis,itmayveryproperlyberestrictedtothatcommercewhichconcernsmoreStatesthanone....Theenumerationpresupposessomethingnotenumerated;andthatsomething,ifweregardthelanguageorthesubjectofthesentence,mustbetheexclusivelyinternalcommerceofaState).AsthisCourtnotedrecentlyinLopez R ,the justifica l  tionforthisformaldistinctionwasrootedinthefearthatotherwisetherewouldbevirtuallynolimittothefederalpowerandforallpracticalpurposeswewouldhaveacompletelycentralizedgovernment.514U.S.,at555(quoting T _Schechter_ԀPoultry,295U.S.,at548). t `<$XXX$X$XXX$X  Z@,4 <DL!"&)\+P XZ ,   ` KnightCo.,156U.S.,at12;  d   _Kidd_,128U.S.,at20.`