eemed unconstitutional because it attempted to impede interstate commerce on grounds that were outside its jurisdiction. The law made it unlawful to transport goods on interstate roads that were made in places that violated the guidelines set by the act. This decision and other dualist aligned decisions clearly evoke the obvious signs that the Justices involved in writing the decisions were strongly influenced by the prospect of an expanding economy. The idea that government control in areas of commerce would impede the economic growth was something that the dualist court could not accept. As such, the court paid more attention to the political/social atmosphere than it did to the intentions of the Constitution. The court ruled that matters between employers and employees were of local nature in the Carter v Carter Coal Co. 298 U.S. 238. Perhaps the most vigorously anti-national decision among those discussed in this essay, this decision held that national jurisdiction would be based on the type of activity that was in question. Rather than follow the example set by Gibbons v Ogden, the court chose to divide the responsibility of governing different segments of the economic process by separating distribution and production. This division has come to symbolize everything that is political about the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not always exhibited the ability to exert its jurisprudence in favor of cooperative federalism with an even hand. The Supreme Court expanded the meaning of commerce when it ruled in The Lottery Case (Champion v Ames 188 U.S. 321) that commerce included the movement of people, traffic, services and goods that cross state lines. This broadened definition gave the national government so-called police powers because the national government created laws under the scope of the Commerce Clause (e.g. Hipolite Egg Co. v US, Reid v Colorado). The Shreveport Case (Houston East & West Railway Co. v United ...
