Who controls interstate commerce?
481554
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
42275
The ones having 'gov' domain are under direct control of that particular government, where as governmant has indirect control over commercial or misc portals that are in a country, example - the recent google v/s China government tussle.
300360
the state of Indiana and some go to the government of USA. i am pretty sure. they're probably making it higher cause they want to build something really expenseive
121212
Federal branch takes care of business, it also seems to rule over those gray areas of government.\n\nState government rules the state.
104977
www.usda.gov  Down the left side is a button for Marketing and Trade, then look at International Agriculture.  This is the official site for the people who regulate that.
478283
Uncle Moneybags.\n\nOh, wait, that's Monopoly. The correct answer: Abraham Lincoln.
676430
my guess would be the United States Government (USG)\n\nevery person or entity is responsable for it's own actions, whether they be good or bad.
881172
A is accurate. Under the articles, there was no president or courts, only a congress with the power to make war & peace, maintain an army & navy but couldn't colect taxes. The states retained their sovreignity and regulated commerce themselves.
556782
The designation of Interstate Highway has to do with the standards to which the highway is constructed rather than whether it travels between states.\n\nThe Interstate System was originally designed during the Cold War to allow for the rapid movement of military troops and equipment in the event of an invasion of the United States.  To meet this goal, there are minimum standards of road width, bridge strength and vertical clearances that must be met to get an Interstate designation.  In addition, the Federal Government supplies a portion of the funding to build and maintain the Interstate system.\n\nThe Interstates in Hawaii have met these standards and were partially funded by the Federal Government and thus receive an Interstate designation.
277155
the government is the one who negotiates for tariff rates and trade deals. and basically, thats how you get a local product to another country./
1076718
State and Local g-ments are to manage conflict.  Feds are to provide functions (defense, etc.), to set guidlines and oversee state and lcoal g-ments.
677007
I am a 3rd year law student and the answer is pretty much "yes". After a long line of cases after the Burger Court, the Court has been very deferential to allowing Congress to regulate activities "affecting, involved in or substantially affecting" interstate commerce. There are certain situations where it would be blantatly out of Congress's power to regulate (like something purely intrastate) but for the most part, Congress can regulate about any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.
870257
The "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8 (and various amendments) basically allows Congress to go beyond the literal text of its enumerated powers, and enact related laws that support those enumerated goals.\n\nIn a strict interpretation, only those laws directly related to the goals, and neither over or under inclusive, would be permitted. In other words, only the most absolutely necessary laws are allowed.\n\nIn a loose interpretation, any law that is "rationally related" to those goals is permitted. This is the current interpretation, and has been for most of the past century. That's also why the federal government has passed countless laws that are barely linked at all to constitutional mandates. But since Congress can argue that there is some rational connection, no matter how faint, they survive constitutional scrutiny.\n\nHere's a simple example. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the means by which it is conducted.\n\nIn a strict interpretation, this allows them to deal with interstate taxes, and to pay to support interstate roads, and to deal with interstate fraud crimes. But that's it. Anything that happens within one state, or anything that is not directly a commercial transaction between parties in different states, would be off limits.\n\nIn a loose interpretation, Congress can regulate any activity that has any impact whatsoever on interstate commerce. So, they can regulate how much food you grow in your personal garden, even if it's only for your own personal consumption, because the cumulative effect of everyone having their own garden would have an overall cumulative impact on interstate commerce (this is an actual Supreme Court case). \n\nAlso in a loose interpretation, Congress can forbid racial discrimination in any public restaurant or lodging house, because the net cumulative effect of racial discrimination would alter tourism and travel habits, which would have some impact on the overall national interstate commerce practices.\n\nThe issue is how closely the regulated activity needs to be to the enumerated goals that Congress is allowed to pursue. Strict interpretation requires a very close direct link. The current loose interpretation allows pretty much anything.
946502
actually it was in the media. During the Clinton administration. A proposal was made to connect all state level enforcement to centralized federal level but I do not think it was ever completed
838891
The Government sets regulations.
290631
The United States government could compete for the contract, if it so chose.  But what generally happens is that the US government does not actually do the work, but subcontracts it out to private companies.  That is what happened in the UAE ports deal.  The US was subsidizing out security operations to a private company.  However, in the UAE, the government actually owns, operates and profits from certain companies (capitalistic societies, especially the US, try to minimize this).\n\nSo the US government is in charge of the port security. They hire a company to oversee it on behalf of the government.  That company is bought by a company that is owned by the UAE government.  Since the late 1990s, a good number of US ports on the West Coast have been operated by China in the same manner, and the UAE actually oversees a number of other ports from late 2002 that they were given in another contract.\n\nCompetition of any type is good in a free-market, as long as it is done fairly and ethically.
82078
there way of controling things and besides  they get payed for it