I was reading the Dissenting opinion of the PPACA and came across this definition of “Regulate”
“In Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the power to regulate commerce is the power “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.”
That understanding is consistent with the original meaning of “regulate” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, when “to regulate” meant
“[t]o adjust by rule, method or established mode,” 2 N.Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828);
“[t]o adjust by rule or method,” 2 S. Johnson,A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785);
“[t]o adjust, to direct according to rule,” 2 J. Ash, New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1775);
“to put in order, set to rights, govern or keep in order,” T.Dyche & W. Pardon, A New General English Dictionary (16th ed. 1777)”
I’ve read in “Nullification” and “Founding Father’s Guide” that the intent behind “To regulate Commerce…among the several States…” was to establish a free trade zone between the States. Essentially giving the Federal Government the power to keep the States from putting tariffs on each other.
Is this an example of using the definition of Regulate (to make regular, which they didn’t use) from the time of the founding but disregarded the intent behind it from the founding?