Most crucially, it was believed that this would include jurisdiction over Section 92, which provides for freedom of interstate trade.

Where navigation relates to overseas or interstate trade, the national government's law will take precedence in certain circumstances.

A way around this problem was to exclude interstate trade, expressly or by reading down the legislation.

The code spells out a portion of the Constitution about interstate trade.

because we would then be operating a monopoly in interstate trade.

Such delays, Sir James added, would be illegal restraints on interstate trade.

Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade.

By pushing too far, we risked getting nothing because this issue involves interstate trade.

The act declares illegal every agreement that restrains interstate trade among competing sellers.

If so, is the burden on interstate trade and commerce appropriate and adapted to that purpose?