Write a five-hundred word discussion. The concept of federalism is basic to our understanding of the authority of the federal and state governments to regulate business. The Constitution has a significantly different impact on the regulation of business by the federal government than it does on the regulation of business by state governments. The federal government was granted specific powers by the states in the Constitution while the states retained the police power. The commerce clause has become a very broad source of power for the federal government. It also restricts the power of the states to regulate activities that result in an undue burden on interstate commerce. Determining what constitutes an undue burden can be difficult. A court balances the benefit that the state derives from its regulation against the burden it imposes on commerce. The requirements for a valid state regulation under the commerce clause are (1) that it serves a legitimate end and (2) that its purpose cannot be accomplished as well by less discriminatory means. What about a statute designed to protect natural resources, an area traditionally left open to state regulation; that is, it
is not considered preempted by a federal scheme of regulation. For example, imagine a statute banning the importation of baitfish. The ban is a burden on interstate commerce, but the statute's concern is to protect the state's fish from nonnative predators and parasites, and there is no satisfactory way to inspect imported baitfish for parasites. If challenged would this statute likely be upheld as legitimate; that is, a legitimate exercise by a state of its police power?