Page:Haaland v. Brackeen.pdf/101

Rh (2014); id., at 893–894 (, concurring in judgment) (the Treaty Power supports treaties only on matters of international intercourse); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 433–435 (1920). It does not confer a free-floating power over matters that might involve a party to a treaty.

Second, the Commerce Clause confers only the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce … with the Indian Tribes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). “At the time the original Constitution was ratified, ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 585 (1995) (, concurring); see also 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 361 (4th rev. ed. 1773) (reprint 1978) (defining commerce as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick”). And even under our most expansive Commerce Clause precedents, the Clause permits Congress to regulate only “economic activity” like producing materials that will be sold or exchanged as a matter of commerce. See Lopez, 514 U. S., at 560; Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 22 (2005).

The majority, however, suggests that the Commerce Clause could have a broader application with respect to Indian tribes than for commerce between States or with foreign nations. See,. That makes little textual sense. The Commerce Clause confers the power to regulate