Commerce Clause Issues in North Carolina and Washington

The case of Washington and North Carolina concerning apples reflects the issue of commerce. It was stated that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) standards should be followed by all the states. However, Washington Company created more innovative quality standards. As a result, North Carolina applied to the court.

From my point of view, the dormant clause might be considered in this case. According to the United States Constitution, Congress has a right to regulate commerce with foreign countries and between individual states. What is more, it claims that no tax or duty should be established on goods exported from any state. There should be no advantages for one state over another when establishing trade taxes or transportation. In addition, vessels following from one state to another or back should not be forced to enter the port of another state or be discharged. Particularly, the dominant clause restricts the discrimination of one state by the other. I consider that it should be applied and allow Washington to operate according to its own standards. It would also contribute to the competitiveness of companies by increasing the quality of the product. Therefore, it seems that the outcome of this controversy should be decided in favor of Washington.

It seems significant to point out the fact that, in this case, one might note the violation of the commerce issue that states the equal opportunity for all the states to have their state laws defining the commerce. Precisely speaking, to have its own labels, products, or quality standards. However, the Constitution does not define the word “commerce” distinctly, leaving to some extent the misconception. Consequently, some people understand it as trade or exchange while others as more broad commerce.