Related Citations

  • Thomas B. Colby, Revitalizing the Forgotten Uniformity Constraint on the Commerce Power, 91 Va. L. Rev. 249 (2005).

    Arguing that Article I, Section 8 was intended to prohibit nonuniform exercises of the Commerce Power and that, “[f]or purely stylistic reasons, that provision was ultimately broken into two different clauses, the Port Preference Clause and the Uniformity Clause, but the Framers understood those clauses to be one in purpose, and to have the combined effect of categorically prohibiting the nonuniform exercise of the commerce power.”

  • Robert J. Cynkar, Dumping on Federalism, 75 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1261 (2004).

    Arguing that “the Uniformity and Port Preference Clauses make explicit an equality principle that, out of respect for state sovereignty, must be understood as implicit in the Commerce Clause insofar as Congress applies the commerce power to the States.”

  • Gale Ann Norton, The Limitless Federal Taxing Power, 8 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 591 (1985).

    Arguing that “the origin of the tax uniformity requirement probably lay more in respect for principles of state sovereignty than on a desire to assure equal treatment for taxpayers throughout the country.”

  • Nelson Lund, The Uniformity Clause, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1193 (1984).

    Arguing that the Uniformity and Port Preference Clauses (which were initially conjoined but were separated by the Committee on Style) are “meant to prevent geographic discrimination by Congress that would give one state or region a competitive advantage in its commercial relations with the others.”