Supreme Court Case: Pike Vs. Aurora

Pike v. Aurora The issue at hand in this case is whether or not the town ordinance is constitutional. To determine this, there are a number of questions that must be asked and laws that must be examined. The first step in determining the constitutionality is knowing and understanding the enumerated powers given to congress under the constitution. Enumerated powers are specific powers listed in the constitution that congress can exercise. If a power is not specifically listed in the constitution, federal legislation on it would be unconstitutional (Mallor 60). In addition to enumerated powers, the constitution also uses independent checks to limit federal and state power. While the constitution does not specifically list the powers of the states, it does declare that certain powers can only be exercised by congress. One of the three main congressional powers is the power to regulate commerce among the states (Mallor 61). The Commerce Clause states that “The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce…among the several states” (Mallor 61). However, the federal power under this clause has continuously expanded as a result of cases such as Wickard v.
Aurora may argue that the first part of the ordinance which prevents construction or remodeling without a permit serves a legitimate interest of preserving the town’s relationship with the bay. However, the house on the lot is abandoned and the comments of the Council members show that the ordinance does not protect a legitimate interest. Since the ordinance affects interstate commerce, does not serve a legitimate state interest, and there is evidence that a majority of the Council members denied the request in violation of Commerce Clause, the court should rule the ordinance and the denial of Pike’s request