text:
Commerce Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Constitutional Law
of the United States
Overview
Articles
Amendments
History
Judicial review
Principles
Separation of powers
Individual rights
Rule of law
Federalism
Republicanism
Government structure
Legislative branch
Executive branch
Judicial branch
State government
Local government
Individual rights
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press
Freedom of assembly
Right to petition
Freedom of association
Right to keep and bear arms
Right to trial by jury
Criminal procedural rights
Right to privacy
Freedom from slavery
Due process
Equal protection
Citizenship
Voting rights
Theory
Living Constitution
Originalism
Purposivism
Textualism
Strict constructionism
v
t
e
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, it is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the US Supreme Court's interpretation.
During the Marshall Court era, Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).
The Commerce Clause is the source of federal drug prohibition laws under the Controlled Substances Act. In a recent medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce. The Court relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce.
Contents
[hide]
1 Text and pairing
1.1 Significance – federal rights in navigable waters
1.2 Early years (1800s–1830s)
1.3 Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence
1.4 New Deal
1.5 Civil rights
1.6 The Rehnquist Court
2 Themes
2.1 Rational basis review
2.2 Role of the political process
2.3 Debate over applicability to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links
Text and pairing[edit]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005):[4][5]
The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.
The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders. The outer limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause power have been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and the states and the balance of power between the two elected branches of the federal government and the Judiciary. As such, it directly affects the lives of American citizens.
Significance – federal rights in navigable waters[edit]
The commerce clause provides comprehensive powers to the United States over navigable waters. These powers are critical to understanding the rights of landowners adjoining or exercising what would otherwise be riparian rights under the common law. The Commerce Clause confers a unique position upon the Government in connection with navigable waters. "The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States... For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress." United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967). The Rands decision continues:
This power to regulate navigation confers upon the United States a dominant servitude, FPC v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239, 249 (1954), which extends to the entire stream and the stream bed below ordinary high-water mark. The proper exercise of this power is not an invasion of any private property rights in the stream or the lands underlying it, for the damage sustained does not result from taking property from riparian owners within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment but from the lawful exercise of a power to which the interests of riparian owners have always been subject. United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 596–597 (1941); Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269, 275–276 (1897). Thus, without being constitutionally obligated to pay compensation, the United States may change the course of a navigable stream, South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4 (1876), or otherwise impair or destroy a riparian owner's access to navigable waters, Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269 (1897); Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 (1900); United States v. Commodore Park, Inc., 324 U.S. 386 (1945), even though the market value of the riparian owner's land is substantially diminished.
Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress, and thus a broad interpretation of the word "commerce" was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, they argue that the word "commerce", as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either "trade" or "exchange" interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements. They also point to Madison's statement in an 1828 letter that the "Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade'."[6][7]
Examining contemporaneous dictionaries does not neatly resolve the matter. For instance, the 1792 edition of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun "commerce" narrowly as "[e]xchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick", but it defines the corresponding verb "to commerce" more broadly as "[t]o hold intercourse."[8] The word "intercourse" also had a different and wider meaning back in 1792 than it does now.
Early years (1800s–1830s)[edit]
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the power to regulate interstate navigation: "Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse ... [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce' ... [T]he power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines." The Court's decision contains language supporting one important line of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the idea that the electoral process of representative government represents the primary limitation on the exercise of the Commerce Clause powers:
The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments....
In Gibbons, the Court struck down New York's attempt to grant a steamboat monopoly to Robert Fulton, which he had then ultimately franchised to Ogden. Ogden claimed river traffic was not "commerce" under the Commerce Clause and further that Congress could not interfere with New York State's grant of an exclusive monopoly within its own borders. Ogden's assertion was untenable: he contended New York could control river traffic within New York all the way to the border with New Jersey, that New Jersey could control river traffic within New Jersey all the way to the border with New York, leaving Congress with the power to control the traffic as it crossed the state line.
Thus, Ogden contended, Congress could not invalidate his monopoly as long as he only transported passengers within New York. The Supreme Court, however, found that Congress could invalidate his monopoly since it was operational on an interstate channel of navigation.
In its decision, the Court assumed interstate commerce required movement of the subject of regulation across state borders. The decision contains the following principles, some of which have since been altered by subsequent decisions:
Commerce is "intercourse, all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."
Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior... Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one."
The Commerce power is the power to regulate, that is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" which "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution."
Additionally, the Marshall Court limited the extent of federal maritime and admiralty jurisdiction to tidewaters in The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson.[9]
In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), the Supreme Court addressed whether the Cherokee nation is a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution. The Court provided a definition of Indian tribe that clearly made the rights of tribes far inferior to those of foreign states. In part the court said:
"Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian."
Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence[edit]
Main article: Dormant Commerce Clause
As explained in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), "For nearly a century thereafter (that is, after Gibbons), the Court's Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce.[10] Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as "exhibitions", "production", "manufacturing", and "mining" were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. When Congress began to engage in economic regulation on a national scale, the Court's dormant Commerce Clause decisions influenced its approach to Congressional regulation.
In this context, the Court took a formalistic approach, which distinguished between services and commerce, manufacturing and commerce, direct and indirect effects on commerce, and local and national activities. See concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy in United States v. Lopez. ("One approach the Court used to inquire into the lawfulness of state authority was to draw content-based or subject-matter distinctions, thus defining by semantic or formalistic categories those activities that were commerce and those that were not.") The Dormant Commerce Clause formalisms spilled over into its Article I jurisprudence. While Congress had the power to regulate commerce, it could not regulate manufacturing, which was seen as being entirely local. In Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), the Court struck a federal law which prohibited the manufacture of liquor for shipment across state lines. Similar decisions were issued with regard to agriculture, mining, oil production, and generation of electricity. In Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meatpackers; although their activity was geographically "local", they had an important effect on the "current of commerce", and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court's decision halted price fixing. Stafford v. Wallace (1922) upheld a federal law (the Packers and Stockyards Act) regulating the Chicago meatpacking industry, because the industry was part of the interstate commerce of beef from ranchers to dinner tables. The stockyards "are but a throat through which the current [of commerce] flows," Chief Justice Taft wrote, referring to the stockyards as "great national public utilities." As Justice Kennedy wrote: (in a concurring opinion to United States v. Lopez), "Though that [formalistic] approach likely would not have survived even if confined to the question of a State's authority to enact legislation, it was not at all propitious when applied to the quite different question of what subjects were within the reach of the national power when Congress chose to exercise it."
Similarly, the court excluded most services by distinguishing them from commerce. In Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), which was later upheld in Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953) and Flood v. Kuhn (1973), the court excluded nonproduction-related services, such as live entertainment, from the definition of commerce:
“ That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made for money, would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words. As it is put by defendant, personal effort not related to production is not a subject of commerce. ”
New Deal[edit]
Main article: Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
In 1935 the Supreme Court of the United States, in Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States, invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress's power under the commerce clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act, a main component of President Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional. Again in 1936, in Carter v. Carter Coal Company,[11] the Supreme Court struck down a key element of the New Deal's regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not "commerce." In the preceding decades, the Court had struck down a laundry list of Progressive legislation – minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it. After winning re-election in 1936, Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, wherein the President could appoint an additional Justice for each sitting Justice over age 70. Given the age of the current Justices, this allowed a Supreme Court size of up to 15 Justices. Roosevelt claimed that this was intended to lessen the load on the older Justices, rather than being an attempt to achieve a majority that would cease to strike his New Deal acts.
Ultimately, there was widespread opposition to this "court packing" plan and in the end Roosevelt abandoned it. However, in what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", shortly after the "court packing" plan was proposed, Justice Owen Roberts joined the 5-4 majority opinion in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). The majority narrowly upheld a Washington state minimum wage law, abandoning prior jurisprudence, ending the Lochner era. This essentially marked the beginning of the end of Supreme Court opposition to the New Deal, obviating the political need for the "court packing" scheme as well.
In United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. The Court stated that the Tenth Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.[12]
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.[13]
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which sought to stabilize wide fluctuations in the market price for wheat. The Court found that Congress could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to affect the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. The Court cited its recent Wrightwood decision and decided that "[w]hether the subject of the regulation in question was "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us." The Court re-iterated Marshall's decision in Gibbons: "He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political, rather than from judicial, processes." The Court also stated that "[t]he conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do."[14]
Thereafter, the Court began to defer to the Congress on the theory that determining whether legislation affected commerce appropriately was a political and legislative, not a judicial, decision. This overall change in the Court's jurisprudence, beginning with Parrish, is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937,[15] in which the Court shifted from exercising judicial review of legislative acts to protect economic rights, to a paradigm which focused most strongly on protecting civil liberties.[16]
It was not until United States v. Lopez (1995) decision, after nearly 60 years of leaving any restraint on the use of the Commerce Clause to political means only, that the Court again ruled that a regulation enacted under the Clause was unconstitutional.
Civil rights[edit]
The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.
The Rehnquist Court[edit]
The Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence restored limits to the Interstate Commerce Clause that were removed in post-New Deal decisions, based primarily on concerns of federalism and encroachment by Congress on the several States' police powers. It upheld Congress's plenary authority to legislate in Indian affairs that was derived from the Worcester decision's interpretation of the Indian Commerce Clause, but modified Worcester by giving the several states some jurisdiction over Indian affairs beyond what had been granted to them by Congress. Another view is that the Court was compelled to define limits to address Congressional legislation which sought to use the Interstate Commerce Clause power in new and unprecedented ways. In United States v. Lopez, the Court confronted conviction of a 12th Grade student for carrying a concealed handgun into school in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The Gun-Free School Zones Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone. The legislation posed several challenging problems for Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Education is a traditionally local government activity, and while education undoubtedly has an economic aspect, the nexus between regulating gun violence and the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce seems particularly strained. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court ruled Congress was exercising its Commerce Clause power to regulate local economic activity in ways that the States were powerless to regulate, because only the federal government could effectively control the national wheat supply. The Court reasoned that if Wickard could be applied to acts of gun violence, simply because crime impaired education, Congress might conclude that crime in schools substantially affects commerce, and may be regulated. Under this logic, all police power could be nationalized and local police and criminal courts eliminated on the theory that all crime affects commerce.
As the majority explained:
Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
The opinion pointed out that prior decisions had identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;[17]
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;[18]
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).[19]
Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in Lopez. This was the first time in sixty years, since the conflict with President Roosevelt in 1936–37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.
The Lopez decision was clarified in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which the Supreme Court invalidated § 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"). The VAWA created civil liability for the commission of a gender-based violent crime, but without any jurisdictional requirement of a connection to Interstate Commerce or commercial activity. 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c). Once again, the Court was presented with a Congressional attempt to criminalize traditional local criminal conduct. As in Lopez, it could not be argued that State regulation alone would be ineffective to protect the aggregate effects of local violence. The Court explained that in both Lopez and Morrison "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision." Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in neither case was there an " 'express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach (to those instances that) have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.' " Id. at 1751. In both cases, Congress criminalized activity that was not commercial in nature without including a jurisdictional element establishing the necessary connection between the criminalized activity and Interstate Commerce.
The Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states.
Many described the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause cases as a doctrine of "New Federalism". The outer limits of that doctrine were delineated by Gonzales v. Raich, in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana. The Court found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered Interstate Commerce. The court held Congress may regulate an intrastate economic good if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.
During the Rehnquist court and to present, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has played an integral part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution while other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most broadly interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.[20]
Themes[edit]
Rational basis review[edit]
The evolving level of scrutiny applied by Federal courts to Commerce Clause cases should be considered in the context of rational basis review. The idea behind rational basis review is that the judiciary must show deference to the elected representatives of the people. A respect for the democratic process requires that the Courts uphold legislation if there are rational facts and reasons that could support Congressional judgment, even if the Justices would come to different conclusions. Throughout the 20th century, in a variety of contexts, courts sought to avoid second guessing the legislative branch, and Commerce Clause jurisprudence can be seen as a part of this trend. Lawrence Tribe states:
Since 1937, in applying the factual test in Jones & Laughlin to hold a broad range of activities sufficiently related to interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has exercised little independent judgment, choosing instead to defer to the expressed or implied findings of Congress to the effect that regulated activities have the requisite "economic effect". Such findings have been upheld whenever they could be said to rest upon some rational basis.[21] (Citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States (1964).)
Justice Rehnquist echoed this point in his opinion in United States v. Lopez, stating: "Since [Wickard], the Court has ... undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264, 276–280 (1981);[22] Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 155–156 (1971);[23] Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 252–253 (1964)."[24]
Rational basis review begins with establishing the factual predicate upon which the exercise of Congressional power is based. This factual basis might come from a variety of sources. It might come from factual determinations made by Congress, passed in the legislation itself, or found in the Congressional Reports issued to accompany the legislation. It might come from the record of testimony compiled in Committee Hearings. It might come from facts posited by proponents in their briefs in support of the legislation. For example, the Court referenced extensive testimony presented in hearings in support of the conclusion that discrimination in public accommodations reduces interstate commerce. The Court wrote:
Of course, the mere fact that Congress has said when particular activity shall be deemed to affect commerce does not preclude further examination by this Court. But where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.
Similarly, in Gonzales v. Raich the Court upheld a ban on growing marijuana intended for medical use on the grounds that Congress could rationally conclude that such cultivation might make enforcement of drug laws more difficult by creating an otherwise lawful source of marijuana that could be diverted into the illicit market:
In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA.
Role of the political process[edit]
Since its decision in Gibbons, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate only those activities within a state that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction and that, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. Since judicial interpretations of constitutional limitations on Congressional exercise of its Commerce Clause powers represent an invasion of the democratic process which may not be overturned through ordinary democratic means, the Court has continued to assert that the primary limitation on the unwise exercise of Congressional Commerce Clause power by Congress must be found at the ballot box. Thus in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), the Court stated:
Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.
Debate over applicability to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]
Questions over the range and applicability of the Commerce Clause have arisen in debate over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"). The debate centers around whether Congress is authorized to require citizens to purchase health insurance from the private market, known as the individual mandate. Congress claims authority from the Commerce Clause. However, many opponents of the PPACA have claimed that the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority thereunder, primarily on the position that the law attempts to define the non-purchase of insurance as "commerce".
Twenty-six state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming the insurance mandate is unconstitutional. On June 8, 2011, a panel of three judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta held hearings on the issue.[25] On August 12, 2011. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Individual Mandate portion unconstitutional, stating that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage.[26]
Differing court opinions have clashed over the question of whether failure to purchase insurance can be considered an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity." In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."
Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."[27]
In response to the Virginia decision, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the appeal immediately, rather than going through the Fourth Circuit. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case in the spring of 2012.[28] The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 26–28, 2012. Its majority opinion agreed that upholding the PPACA under the commerce clause "would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority" and that "the power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated".[29] The Court held that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance, but still upheld the law's "individual mandate" provision under Congress' taxing authority.[30]
See also[edit]
Dual federalism
National Recovery Administration
Australian commerce clause
Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia
Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Canadian Constitution)
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Miller and Cross. "The Legal Environment Today" Fifth Edition. (2007)
Jump up ^ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Jump up ^ "Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved March 7, 2014.
Jump up ^ "Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 (2005)".
Jump up ^ "Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Raich et al., certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit, No. 03-1454. Argued November 29, 2004 -- Decided June 6, 2005". Archived from the original on October 11, 2008.
Jump up ^ Bork, Robert; Troy, Daniel E. (2002). "Locating the Boundaries: The Scope of Congress's Power to Regulate Commerce". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 25: 849, 861–62.
Jump up ^ "purple motes » peer production". Purplemotes.net. Retrieved September 6, 2008.
Jump up ^ A dictionary of the English language
Jump up ^ The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 428 (1825).
Jump up ^ See also L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 306 (2d ed. 1988).
Jump up ^ "Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)".
Jump up ^ "United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)".
Jump up ^ "United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (Cornell University Law School)".
Jump up ^ "Wickard v. Filburn (Cornell University Law School)".
Jump up ^ "PBS Supreme Court Timeline".
Jump up ^ Leuchtenburg, E. (1996). The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511131-1
Jump up ^ Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 357 (1964) (‘[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.’ ” (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491 (1917))).
Jump up ^ See e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914)
Jump up ^ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-59 (1995) (citing NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 185, 195, n. 27 (1968))
Jump up ^ "Gonzales v. Raich". Straylight.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved September 6, 2008.
Jump up ^ Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 5–4, at P 309 (2d ed. 1988).
Jump up ^ "Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 US 264 - Supreme Court 1981".
Jump up ^ "Perez v. United States, 402 US 146 - Supreme Court 1971".
Jump up ^ "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 US 241 - Supreme Court 1964".
Jump up ^ "National Conference of State Legislatures" (PDF). Twenty-Six State AGs Seek Appeals Court Ruling. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 1, 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate". [dead link]
Jump up ^ Federal Courts Split on Constitutionality of Individual Mandate in Health Care Law - RegBlog
Jump up ^ Supreme Court to Rule This Spring on Health Care Law - ABC News
Jump up ^ Palazzolo, Joe (June 28, 2012). "Health-Care Ruling: Why Not the Commerce Clause?". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
Jump up ^ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Further reading[edit]
"Constitutional Law. Foreign Commerce Clause. Ninth Circuit Holds That Congress Can Regulate Sex Crimes Committed by U.S. Citizens Abroad. United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006)." Harvard Law Review. Volume 119, No. 8, June 2006, p. 2612-2619. Available at JSTOR.
External links[edit]
Clause 3. Commerce Power POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE Capsule history of Commerce Clause cases FindLaw
Fetter, Frank Albert (1911). "Interstate Commerce". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.).
History of How States and Nations Regulated their Commerce with each other Madison, P.A.
[hide]
v
t
e
United States Constitution
Text
(via Wikisource)
Preamble and Articles I–VII
Amendments 1–10
Amendments 11–27
Unsuccessful Proposed Amendments
Debates in State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution
Preamble
and articles
Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Amendments
Ratified
Bill of Rights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Others
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pending
Congressional Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin Amendment
Child Labor
Repealed
Eighteenth Amendment
Unsuccessful
Equal Rights
District of Columbia Voting Rights
List of Amendments
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10)
Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13–15)
Amendment proposals in Congress
Convention to propose amendments
State ratifying conventions
Formation
History
Articles of Confederation
Mount Vernon Conference
Annapolis Convention
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Connecticut Compromise
Three-Fifths Compromise
Committee of Detail
Signing
Independence Hall
Syng inkstand
The Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Massachusetts Compromise
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Hillsborough Convention
Rhode Island ratification
Drafting and ratification timeline
Clauses
Appointments
Appropriations
Assistance of Counsel
Bills of credit
Case or Controversy
Citizenship
Commerce
Compact
Compulsory Process
Confrontation
Contract
Copyright and Patent
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment
Exceptions
Excessive Bail
Ex post facto
Extradition
Free Exercise
Free Speech
Fugitive Slave
Full Faith and Credit
General Welfare
Guarantee
Impeachment
Import-Export
Ineligibility
Militia
Natural-born citizen
Necessary and Proper
New States
No Religious Test
Oath or Affirmation
Origination
Petition
Postal
Presentment
Privileges and Immunities
Privileges or Immunities
Recommendation
Self-Incrimination
Speech or Debate
Speedy Trial
State of the Union
Supremacy
Suspension
Take Care
Takings
Taxing and Spending
Territorial
Title of Nobility
Treaty
Trial by Jury
Vesting
Vicinage
War Powers
List of clauses
Interpretation
Concurrent powers
Congressional enforcement
Constitutional law
Criminal procedure
Criminal sentencing
Dormant Commerce Clause
Enumerated powers
Equal footing
Executive privilege
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Judicial review
Nondelegation doctrine
Preemption
Saxbe fix
Separation of church and state
Separation of powers
Taxation power
Unitary executive theory
Display
and legacy
National Archives
Charters of Freedom Rotunda
Independence Mall
Constitution Day
Constitution Gardens
National Constitution Center
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
A More Perfect Union (film)
Worldwide influence
US Government Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commerce_Clause&oldid=809158833"
Categories:
Legal history of the United States
Legislative branch of the United States government
Clauses of the United States Constitution
Hidden categories:
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from March 2012
Use mdy dates from November 2017
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
한국어
Edit links
This page was last edited on 7 November 2017, at 13:36.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: li

values: List of amendments to the United States Constitution

value: ul

values: History of the United States Constitution

values: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

values: Freedom of religion in the United States

values: Freedom of the press in the United States

values: Right to keep and bear arms in the United States

values: United States constitutional criminal procedure

values: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Template:United States constitutional law

values: Template talk:United States constitutional law

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/US_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
US Supreme Court

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545

values: Edit section: Significance – federal rights in navigable waters

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 389

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Robert_H._Bork
mw-redirect
Robert H. Bork

values:
/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
mw-redirect
Philadelphia Convention

values:
/wiki/Federalist_Papers
mw-redirect
Federalist Papers

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 30

values: Edit section: Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 128

values:
/wiki/Swift_v._United_States
mw-redirect
Swift v. United States

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 196

values: Stafford v. Wallace (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Chicago,_Illinois
mw-redirect
Chicago, Illinois

values: Federal Baseball Club v. National League

values:
/wiki/Toolson_v._New_York_Yankees
mw-redirect
Toolson v. New York Yankees

values: width: 20px; vertical-align: top; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: left; padding: 10px 10px;

values: vertical-align: top; border: none; padding: 4px 10px;

values: width: 20px; vertical-align: bottom; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: right; padding: 10px 10px;

values: margin:auto; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; background-color: transparent; width: auto;

values: Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States

values:
/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Act
mw-redirect
National Industrial Recovery Act

values:
/wiki/Carter_v._Carter_Coal_Company
mw-redirect
Carter v. Carter Coal Company

values: United States presidential election, 1936

values:
/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act
mw-redirect
Fair Labor Standards Act

values: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (page does not exist)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 379

values:
/wiki/Federal_offense
mw-redirect
Federal offense

values: Police power (United States constitutional law)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 529

values:
/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Florida
mw-redirect
Seminole Tribe v. Florida

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 517

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Rational_basis
mw-redirect
Rational basis

values: National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation

values: Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association (page does not exist)

values: Perez v. United States (page does not exist)

values: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

values: Edit section: Role of the political process

values: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 469

values: Edit section: Debate over applicability to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

values: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

values:
/wiki/11th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals
mw-redirect
11th Circuit Court of Appeals

values: Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia

values: Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 23

values: Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: -moz-column-width: 35em; -webkit-column-width: 35em; column-width: 35em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4093521

values:
/wiki/Frank_Albert_Fetter
mw-redirect
Frank Albert Fetter

values: wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Interstate Commerce

values: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

values: s:Constitution of the United States of America

values: s:Additional amendments to the United States Constitution

values: s:Portal:Unsuccessful attempts to amend the United States Constitution

values: s:Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

values: Preamble to the United States Constitution

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values: Article Four of the United States Constitution

values: Article Five of the United States Constitution

values: Article Six of the United States Constitution

values: Article Seven of the United States Constitution

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

values: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

values: Signing of the United States Constitution

values: Ratification of the United States Constitution by Rhode Island

values: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Guarantee_Clause
mw-redirect
Guarantee Clause

values: Oath of office of the President of the United States

values: List of clauses of the United States Constitution

values: United States constitutional sentencing law

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values: Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States

values: United States Constitution and worldwide influence

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Legal history of the United States

values: Category:Legislative branch of the United States government

values: Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from March 2012

values: Category:Use mdy dates from November 2017

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Commerce_Clause
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Commerce_Clause rootpage-Commerce_Clause vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Paul Bearer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Pallbearer or Paul Heyman.
This article is about the professional wrestler manager. For the Creature Feature TV character, see Dr. Paul Bearer. For the musician, see Sheer Terror.
Paul Bearer
Moody in January 2011
Birth name
William Alvin Moody
Born
(1954-04-10)April 10, 1954
Mobile, Alabama, United States
Died
March 5, 2013(2013-03-05) (aged 58)
Mobile, Alabama, United States
Cause of death
Heart Attack
Spouse(s)
Dianna McDole (m. 1978; her death 2009)
Children
2
Professional wrestling career
Ring name(s)
Mr. X
Dr. Rigor Mortis
Percival Pringle III[1]
Percy Pringle III
Paul Bearer[2]
Billed height
5 ft 11 in (1.80 m)
Billed weight
450 lb (200 kg)
Debut
1974
William Alvin Moody (April 10, 1954 – March 5, 2013), better known by his ring names Paul Bearer and Percival 'Percy' Pringle III, was an American professional wrestling manager. He is best known for his time in World Class Championship Wrestling (WCCW) and the World Wrestling Federation (WWF, later WWE), where he performed as the manager of wrestlers such as The Undertaker, Kane, and Mick Foley.
Contents
[hide]
1 Early life
2 Professional wrestling career
2.1 Early career
2.2 World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment (1990–2002)
2.3 Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2003)
2.4 Return to WWE
2.4.1 Managing The Undertaker and backstage work (2004–2005)
2.4.2 Other WWE work and independent circuit (2005–2013)
2.4.3 Sporadic WWE appearances (2010–2012)
3 Personal life
4 Death
4.1 Hall of Fame and legacy
5 In wrestling
6 Awards and accomplishments
7 References
8 Bibliography
9 External links
Early life[edit]
Moody was born in Mobile, Alabama on April 10, 1954. He attended San Antonio College and The University of South Alabama.[3]
Professional wrestling career[edit]
Early career[edit]
He entered the wrestling business in his teenage years as a ringside photographer. After high school, he enlisted in the United States Air Force, serving four years on duty; during this time, he often wrestled for Indian Coast independent promotions during off-duty hours. In 1979, he began managing as Percival "Percy" Pringle, III in southeastern independent promotions. There had been previous Percy Pringles in wrestling who were not William Moody. Immediately after his first son's birth, he cut back his involvement in the wrestling business in order to obtain a degree in mortuary science and earn certification as an embalmer and mortician.
In 1984, he resumed full-time involvement in the wrestling business, using his Pringle character in Championship Wrestling from Florida, World Class Championship Wrestling in Texas, and the United States Wrestling Association (a successor to WCCW). During this time, he served as manager for numerous wrestlers; he notably managed Rick Rude, "Stunning" Steve Austin, and Mark Calaway in their early careers.[1] As Percy Pringle, he was also associated with the careers of Lex Luger, Eric Embry, and The Ultimate Warrior.
World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment (1990–2002)[edit]
He joined the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) in December 1990, after being mentioned by Rick Rude to WWF owner Vince McMahon. McMahon used Moody's real-life involvement in the funeral industry to create the character of Paul Bearer, a name given to him by Road Warrior Hawk and a play on the term pallbearer, a very histrionic, ghostly manager, who was almost always seen bearing an urn (which led to several storylines involving wrestlers stealing his urn), and whose catch phrase was "Ohhh yyyes!"
Paul Bearer holding his urn in 1996.
Moody made his first appearance in February 1991, as a heel, when Brother Love, who originally managed The Undertaker, passed him on to be managed by Paul Bearer. Bearer took on a spookier, ghastlier character. Bearer also hosted the WWF talk show segment entitled The Funeral Parlor, which included memorable segments such as the Ultimate Warrior being locked inside a casket, among others. In 1992, The Undertaker and Bearer turned face, when Undertaker stopped former ally Jake "The Snake" Roberts from ambushing Randy "Macho Man" Savage and Miss Elizabeth with a chair backstage.
Eventually Bearer turned heel again by betraying his long-time protege at SummerSlam 1996 to align himself with The Undertaker's arch-enemy, Mankind. During this time, Bearer also hired The Executioner and Vader to battle The Undertaker.
In April 1997 at In Your House 14: Revenge of the 'Taker, The Undertaker set Bearer's face ablaze using a fireball. As a result, Bearer's head was bandaged for a time before changing his looks, shedding the makeup of ghostly pallor and jet-black color to his natural auburn hair and less make-up. No longer using his ghostly appearance and mannerisms, he became loudmouthed and shrill. Around mid-1997, Paul Bearer coerced Undertaker (WWF Champion at the time) into being his protégé again with the ultimatum of revealing a deep, dark secret involving him. In these moments, discussing the secret, Bearer often made references to "the fires of hell." Feeling he had no choice, The Undertaker eventually accepted after several weeks of resistance. While "managing" Undertaker this time around, Bearer engaged in tyrannical behaviors towards him, harassing and nagging at him constantly. Eventually, Undertaker lost his patience and refused to allow Bearer to continue being his manager, leading Bearer to reveal the secret.
The secret suggested that Bearer had a traumatic past with The Undertaker which long preceded Brother Love's joining the two in January 1991. The secret, which involved the Undertaker's family, was: The Undertaker's mother had an affair with Paul Bearer and as a result, gave birth to a younger half-brother of The Undertaker, named Kane. Throughout The Undertaker's childhood and teen years, he lived in a funeral home with his parents and half-brother. According to Paul Bearer, The Undertaker accidentally killed his parents by setting the funeral home ablaze and caused his half-brother's face to be bruised and scarred. At the time throughout mid to late 1997, The Undertaker denied all this, claiming it was his younger half-brother's fault. Bearer accused The Undertaker of being an "arsonist", "murderer", and "liar."
Because of the fire incident, The Undertaker thought his younger half-brother and Bearer's illegitimate son had been dead for years. But Bearer introduced Kane in October 1997 at Badd Blood: In Your House, where Kane cost The Undertaker a Hell in a Cell match against Shawn Michaels.[4] This led to a bitter rivalry between The Undertaker and Kane and Bearer. Kane was not revealed as Bearer's son until April 27, 1998, on Monday Night Raw, a day after the first Inferno Match, at Unforgiven, where Kane was set on fire. The Undertaker was shown to have also been unaware of this at that time, and helped to build the feud up further, as Undertaker initially refused to believe the story until an in-story DNA test proved it to be true. The feud lasted into summer of 1998, when Kane seemingly abandoned Bearer to side with The Undertaker, beginning a face turn.
Bearer and The Undertaker became a heel team again toward the end of 1998 when Bearer betrayed his own son, Kane, in favor of managing The Undertaker once again. Once becoming a heel with Bearer, The Undertaker shamelessly admitted to setting the funeral home ablaze for which he had initially claimed was an accident or blamed Kane. Shortly thereafter, Bearer (returning to his signature look) and The Undertaker formed the Ministry of Darkness. Both he and The Undertaker took a hiatus from the WWF unceremoniously in September 1999 as a result of The Undertaker suffering an injury.
In early 2000, Bearer, who turned face once more briefly, returned to WWF TV as Kane's manager, but he retired from on-screen performing shortly after WrestleMania 2000. Later that year, he went backstage to serve as a WWF road agent, stage manager, and talent scout. His contract with WWE ended in October 2002.
Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2003)[edit]
He spent the next year working with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) under the ring name Percy Pringle III.
Return to WWE[edit]
In October 2003, he signed a new three-year contract with WWE. When Jim Ross contacted him about rejoining the company, Paul at first refused the offer. Ross then called again with an offer. At that time, he was suffering from health problems and depression related to his obesity and underwent gastric bypass surgery in November 2003. As a signing bonus, WWE agreed to pay for the surgery, as Ross promised.[5]
Managing The Undertaker and backstage work (2004–2005)[edit]
After recovering, he reappeared as Paul Bearer in March 2004 at WrestleMania XX, alongside Undertaker in a match against Kane. Paul Bearer also appeared on TV as The Undertaker's manager.
In spring of 2004, Paul Bearer was kidnapped by The Dudley Boyz under the direction of Paul Heyman. This was set up in order to temporarily write Bearer out of WWE story lines because he had to undergo emergency gallbladder surgery after suddenly developing gallstones, a common side effect of gastric bypass surgery.
For the June 27, 2004 pay-per-view The Great American Bash, a match pitting The Undertaker against both of The Dudley Boyz was booked. Paul Bearer was encased in a glass "crypt" backstage, covered up to his chest in cement. Heyman demanded The Undertaker throw the match or Bearer would be suffocated in cement.
The Undertaker won the match but proceeded afterwards to pull the lever that sent cement into the crypt, completely burying Paul Bearer, suffocating him. (Bearer was not really at the event. The WWE had recorded footage of Paul Bearer in the crypt before the event. During the event, there was a stunt double in the crypt the whole time. That's why the television audience could only see Paul Bearer and the crypt he was in – since he wasn't there, they couldn't actually show anyone on screen with Bearer).[6] This shot ended the pay-per-view and caused numerous complaints toward WWE, as in essence they had shown a simulated murder. The live audience, however, saw an extended ending in which Bearer surfaced for air and was carried from the arena on a stretcher. On the following week's SmackDown!, Bearer was acknowledged to be alive, although gravely injured, for storyline purposes. The rehearsal taping earlier in the day of the Bash – with Undertaker ad-libbing and only half of the stunt complete, in an empty arena – was leaked onto the internet dirt sheets and actually broadcast live by accident in many of the television markets. As he had two years remaining on his contract, however, Bearer was used as a booker for the company up until WWE decided to terminate his contract on April 11, 2005.[7]
Other WWE work and independent circuit (2005–2013)[edit]
On June 10, 2005, Bearer announced that he had signed a new deal with WWE, allowing it to market his personality and requiring he attend autograph sessions, make promotional appearances and occasionally work TV and house shows. In late January 2007, at a SmackDown/ECW house show in Mobile, Alabama, Bearer joined The Brothers of Destruction at ringside, carrying the original urn.[8]
On April 11, 2007, Bearer appeared in the "Where Are They Now?" page, on the WWE website. He was said to have lost 240 pounds.[9]
Bearer was a manager in the THQ video game WWE Legends of WrestleMania in 2009. In 2010, Moody did voice over work as Paul Bearer for the game, WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011, where he was featured in one of the Road To WrestleMania storylines for the game, as well as a selectable manager. He was also in WWE All Stars, WWE '13, and WWE 2K14 as a selectable manager and part of the Attitude Era single-player mode, and 30 Years of WrestleMania mode respectively representing The Brothers of Destruction.
Bearer returned to the Boston-based Millennium Wrestling Federation as top heel manager along with John "Bradshaw" Layfield after four years, leading "Stalker" Dylan Kage at Soul Survivor VI against The Iron Sheik and "Black Machismo" Jay Lethal in the Sheik's retirement match April 24, 2010.
On October 12, 2012, Bearer managed Vader against Rikishi at Pro Wrestling Syndicate in Rahway, NJ.[10]
Sporadic WWE appearances (2010–2012)[edit]
On the September 24, 2010, episode of SmackDown, Bearer made his first on-screen appearance in 6 years after being brought out in a casket. He helped The Undertaker, who was feuding with Kane over the World Heavyweight Championship, by restoring Undertaker's powers with the urn.[11] Bearer officially became Undertaker's manager again by accompanying him to the ring for his match against Kane for the title at the Hell in a Cell pay-per-view. During the match, Bearer once again turned on Undertaker, after shining a light in his eyes when he was about to Tombstone Kane. He then let Kane hit Undertaker with the urn to help him win, thus turning heel.[12] On the October 15 episode of SmackDown, Bearer challenged Undertaker to face Kane in a Buried Alive Match for the World Heavyweight Championship at Bragging Rights, to which Undertaker accepted by attacking Kane. At Bragging Rights, Kane once again defeated Undertaker after interference by Bearer, who was almost thrown in the grave by Undertaker, and The Nexus, who helped Bearer and Kane bury Undertaker.
Kane then entered a feud with Edge, after he was named the new challenger to Kane's World Heavyweight Championship at Survivor Series. On the November 12 episode of SmackDown, Bearer cost Edge his match against Nexus member David Otunga. After the match, Edge kidnapped Bearer by strapping him in a wheelchair. Later that night, Edge used Bearer to cost Kane his match against Big Show. The following week, Edge tormented Bearer throughout the night by throwing a dodgeball at him and force feeding and throwing pizza all over him. Edge then used Bearer to call for Kane in the parking lot, but Kane wasn't able to get Bearer in time as Edge attacked him and drove off with Bearer. At Survivor Series, Edge brought an empty wheelchair causing Kane to go mad frantically trying to interrogate him on where Bearer was held. Even though the match ended in a draw, Kane was unable to find Bearer as Edge wheeled his enemy into a barricade. On the November 26 episode of SmackDown, Kane demanded that Edge to let Bearer go, but Edge refused. Kane attempted to track down Bearer, but was unable to find him. Kane offered a second title shot to Edge, which he accepted, but continued to keep Bearer with him. At the end of the night, Edge lured Kane to the parking lot, where Edge drove over a dummy version of Paul Bearer, with the actual Paul Bearer in the backseat of the car. On the December 3 episode of SmackDown, Edge continued his mind games with Kane by pushing a dummy version of Paul Bearer down some stairs. Then, after Edge defeated Kane in a non-title match, he brought out a Paul Bearer lookalike. Kane then went to search for Bearer again, but Edge drove away in a truck with Bearer tied up on the back. The following week, Kane begged Edge to return Bearer, but Edge once again refused. Kane then refused to participate in the main event that night and once again searched for Bearer. After seeing what he thought was a dummy version of Paul Bearer on top of two ladders, Kane pushed them over. Afterward, Kane saw that he pushed the actual Paul Bearer off the ladders onto the concrete floor, thus, injuring him and writing him out of the storyline.[13]
In April 2012, Bearer returned for a brief stint as a part of Kane's ongoing feud with Randy Orton. He was kidnapped by Orton and then stuck in a storage freezer while strapped to a wheelchair. Kane later came for Bearer, only to roll him back into the freezer and saying, "I'm saving you... from me".[14][unreliable source]
Bearer was planned to reunite with The Undertaker and Kane on WWE Raw 1000 but couldn't make the event due to scheduling and travel conflicts.[15][unreliable source] Bearer's last appearance for WWE was in April 2012 before his death.
Personal life[edit]
Moody married Dianna McDole in December 1978 and had two sons, Michael and Daniel. Daniel wrestles on the independent circuit as DJ Pringle.[16][17] Dianna died due to complications resulting from breast cancer on January 31, 2009.[18]
Moody's health improved after his gastric bypass surgery. One year earlier, he admitted that he had weighed 525 pounds (238 kg) before the operation but dropped to under 300 pounds.[19]
In September and October 2005, he conducted three shoot interviews for Ring of Honor. Two were done exclusively about him, talking about his career in wrestling. The third was with friend and fellow wrestling manager Jim Cornette. He returned full-time to his funeral business in 2006. In 2005, Moody, with three partners, started his own independent promotion known as Gulf South Wrestling. In May 2007 he dissolved the company after his partners wanted to continue the promotion without him.[20] On September 21, 2014, his son Michael died.[21]
Death[edit]
On March 2, 2013, he attended the annual Gulf Coast Wrestlers Reunion in Mobile, AL. According to club board member "Cowboy" Bob Kelly, Moody was having breathing difficulties at the event. He was coughing, and told friends he was going to seek treatment for respiratory problems. Kelly said that Moody was treated for a blood clot after the reunion.[22] On March 5, 2013, Moody died in Mobile, Alabama at the age of 58 due to a heart attack. The cause of the heart attack was supraventricular tachycardia, which causes a dangerously high heart rate.[23]
Hall of Fame and legacy[edit]
Bearer was posthumously inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame by his two real-life sons (bottom right).
Following his death, Moody became a driving point in WWE storylines. The March 11 episode of Raw was held as a tribute to Bearer, The Undertaker paid tribute but was interrupted by CM Punk, his WrestleMania 29 opponent. Punk then mocked Bearer over the next few weeks against both The Undertaker and Kane, including stealing his urn and attacking Kane with it. On the April 1 episode of Raw, Paul Heyman dressed up as Paul Bearer and Punk poured the ashes of the urn onto The Undertaker after attacking him. At WrestleMania 29, The Undertaker defeated Punk and took back the urn, dedicating his victory to Paul Bearer.[24][unreliable source]
On the March 3, 2014, episode of Raw it was announced that Paul Bearer would be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame.[25] Kane was the inductor whereas his sons Michael and Daniel Moody had accepted the induction. After the segment, The Undertaker came out in character and paid tribute.[26]
On February 24, 2016, his Hall of Fame ring was shown on Pawn Stars; the seller stated his ring was given to him by his family. Moody's son Daniel later stated that the ring was a fake.[27]
In wrestling[edit]
Wrestlers managed
The Assassin
Big Show
Blackjack Mulligan
Brian Cage
Buzz Sawyer
The Dingo Warrior
Don Jardine
Eric Embry
The Executioner
Great Kabuki
Jack Victory
Kane
Koko B. Ware
Lex Luger
Mankind
The Missing Link
Rick Rude
Shaun Ricker
Steve Austin
Sugar Bear Harris/Kamala
Ted Arcidi
The Undertaker
Norvell Austin
Vader
Nicknames
"The Father of Destruction"
"Uncle Paul"
"Mr. Ashes
"Paul of Death"
Awards and accomplishments[edit]
Cauliflower Alley Club
Other honoree (2003)
George Tragos/Lou Thesz International Wrestling Institute
Lou Thesz Award (2014)
Gulf Coast Wrestlers Reunion
Pioneer Award 2001 Member of the Board of Directors
Pro Wrestling Illustrated
Manager of the Year (1998)
WWE
WWE Hall of Fame (Class of 2014)
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Stone Cold Steve Austin. The Stone Cold Truth (p.80)
Jump up ^ Stone Cold Steve Austin. The Stone Cold Truth (p.81)
Jump up ^ http://percypringle.com/biography.html
Jump up ^ "Raw 1998 results". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved July 10, 2008.
Jump up ^ Carrier, Steve (October 21, 2010). "Paul Bearer Discusses McMahon Paying For His Gastric Bypass Surgery". wrestlenewz.com.
Jump up ^ Chris Boyle. "Smash Wrestling!".
Jump up ^ Perry, Bianca (April 10, 2005). "Paul Bearer Released From His WWE Contract". wrestling101.com.
Jump up ^ Pringle, Percy. (January 29, 2007) Percy's Posts: An Overdue Update. Percysposts.blogspot.com. Retrieved on 2011-03-08.
Jump up ^ Brett Hoffman. "Catching up with Paul Bearer".
Jump up ^ Daly, Wayne (August 14, 2012). "Vader vs. Rikishi Announced For Upcoming Pro Wrestling Syndicate iPPV". wrestling-news.com.
Jump up ^ Hillhouse, Dave (September 25, 2010). "Smackdown: Kickin' it old school". Slam! Sports. Canadian Online Explorer. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
Jump up ^ Hillhouse, Dave (October 4, 2010). "Hell in a Cell: Betrayal, fan interference, and flying shoes". Slam! Sports. Canadian Online Explorer. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
Jump up ^ Glazer, Pulse (December 8, 2010). "WWE Smackdown Spoilers for 12/10 with Edge, Kane, Rey Mysterio". wrestling.insidepulse.com.
Jump up ^ Steven, Andy (April 23, 2012). "Edge Returns, Paul Bearer Appears On Raw, Announced Attendance". wrestlinginc.com.
Jump up ^ http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/0725/554670/the-miz/
Jump up ^ Biography. PercyPringle.com. Retrieved on March 8, 2011.
Jump up ^ OWOW Profile
Jump up ^ "Breast Cancer and me... and you too". PERCYSPOSTS.BLOGSPOT.com. October 15, 2010. Retrieved October 23, 2010.
Jump up ^ Percy's Posts: November 2005
Jump up ^ "Percy's Posts: Gulf South Wrestling Closed". percysposts.blogspot.com. May 15, 2007.
Jump up ^ http://www.pwinsider.com/article/88422/michael-moody-passes-away.html?p=1
Jump up ^ "Paul Bearer Suffered Blood Clot before Death". TMZ. Retrieved March 6, 2013.
Jump up ^ "Paul Bearer Heart Attack Killed Him". TMZ. May 2, 2014.
Jump up ^ Middleton, Marc (April 7, 2013). "WrestleMania 29: CM Punk Vs. The Undertaker". wrestlinginc.com.
Jump up ^ Gray, Richard (March 3, 2014). "Paul Bearer To Be Inducted Into The 2014 WWE Hall Of Fame". wrestlingnewsworld.com.
Jump up ^ Hayner, Chris (April 6, 2014). "WWE Hall of Fame 2014: The Undertaker appears for Paul Bearer tribute". zap2it.com.
Jump up ^ http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/moody-family-claims-wwe-hall-of-fame-ring-on-pawn-stars-was-a-fake/
Bibliography[edit]
Stone Cold Steve Austin and Jim Ross (2003). The Stone Cold Truth. Pocket Books. ISBN 0-7434-7720-0.
External links[edit]
Professional wrestling portal
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Paul Bearer.
Official website
Official blog
Paul Bearer on WWE.com
WWE where are they now?
Paul Bearer interview
Pick My Brain with Paul Bearer
Interview with Paul Bearer
[show]
v
t
e
WWE Hall of Fame Inductees
[show]
1990s
Class of 1993
André the Giant
Class of 1994
Arnold Skaaland
Bobo Brazil
Buddy Rogers
Chief Jay Strongbow
Freddie Blassie
Gorilla Monsoon
James Dudley
Class of 1995
Antonino Rocca
Ernie Ladd
The Fabulous Moolah
George Steele
The Grand Wizard
Ivan Putski
Pedro Morales
Class of 1996
Jimmy Snuka
Johnny Rodz
Killer Kowalski
Lou Albano
Mikel Scicluna
Pat Patterson
The Valiant Brothers (Jimmy Valiant and Johnny Valiant)
Vincent J. McMahon
[show]
2000s
Class of 2004
Big John Studd
Superstar Billy Graham
Bobby Heenan
Don Muraco
Greg Valentine
Harley Race
Jesse Ventura
Junkyard Dog
Pete Rose
Sgt. Slaughter
Tito Santana
Class of 2005
Bob Orton Jr.
Hulk Hogan
The Iron Sheik
Jimmy Hart
Nikolai Volkoff
Paul Orndorff
Roddy Piper
Class of 2006
The Blackjacks (Blackjack Mulligan and Blackjack Lanza)
Bret Hart
Eddie Guerrero
Gene Okerlund
Sensational Sherri
Tony Atlas
Verne Gagne
William Perry
Class of 2007
Mr. Perfect
Dusty Rhodes
Jerry Lawler
Jim Ross
Mr. Fuji
Nick Bockwinkel
The Sheik
The Wild Samoans (Afa Anoaʻi and Sika Anoa'i)
Class of 2008
The Brisco Brothers (Gerald Brisco and Jack Brisco)
Eddie Graham
Gordon Solie
Mae Young
Peter Maivia
Ric Flair
Rocky Johnson
Class of 2009
Bill Watts
The Funk Brothers (Terry Funk and Dory Funk Jr.)
Howard Finkel
Koko B. Ware
Ricky Steamboat
Stone Cold Steve Austin
The Von Erich Family (Chris Von Erich, David Von Erich, Fritz Von Erich, Kerry Von Erich, Kevin Von Erich and Mike Von Erich)
[show]
2010s
Class of 2010
Antonio Inoki
Bob Uecker
Gorgeous George
Mad Dog Vachon
Stu Hart
Ted DiBiase
Wendi Richter
Class of 2011
Abdullah the Butcher
Bob Armstrong
Drew Carey
Jim Duggan
The Road Warriors (Road Warrior Hawk, Road Warrior Animal and Paul Ellering)
Shawn Michaels
Sunny
Class of 2012
Edge
The Four Horsemen (Arn Anderson, Barry Windham, J.J. Dillon, Ric Flair and Tully Blanchard)
Mil Máscaras
Mike Tyson
Ron Simmons
Yokozuna
Class of 2013
Bob Backlund
Booker T
Bruno Sammartino
Donald Trump
Mick Foley
Trish Stratus
Class of 2014
Carlos Colón
Jake "The Snake" Roberts
Lita
Mr. T
Paul Bearer
Razor Ramon
The Ultimate Warrior
Class of 2015
Alundra Blayze
Arnold Schwarzenegger
The Bushwhackers (Butch Miller and Luke Williams)
Connor Michalek
Kevin Nash
Larry Zbyszko
Randy Savage
Rikishi
Tatsumi Fujinami
Class of 2016
Big Boss Man
Ed Lewis
The Fabulous Freebirds (Michael Hayes, Buddy Roberts, Jimmy Garvin and Terry Gordy)
Frank Gotch
George Hackenschmidt
The Godfather
Jacqueline
Joan Lunden
Lou Thesz
Mildred Burke
Pat O'Connor
Sailor Art Thomas
Snoop Dogg
Stan Hansen
Sting
Class of 2017
Kurt Angle
Martin Burns
June Byers
Haystacks Calhoun
The Rock 'n' Roll Express (Ricky Morton and Robert Gibson)
Judy Grable
Dr. Jerry Graham
Eric LeGrand
Theodore Long
Luther Lindsay
Toots Mondt
Diamond Dallas Page
Beth Phoenix
Rikidōzan
Rick Rude
Bearcat Wright
[show]
v
t
e
The Undertaker
Career
The Brothers of Destruction
The Ministry of Darkness
The Corporate Ministry
Hell in a Cell
1998 match
The Streak
Related characters
Paul Bearer
Kane
Brother Love
Brian Lee (Ted DiBiase's Undertaker)
Other
Undertaker comics
Michelle McCool (wife)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Bearer&oldid=807627218"
Categories:
1954 births
2013 deaths
American male professional wrestlers
The Corporate Ministry members
Funeral directors
People from Mobile, Alabama
Professional wrestlers from Alabama
Professional wrestling managers and valets
Professional wrestling trainers
WWE Hall of Fame
Hidden categories:
Use mdy dates from April 2015
All articles lacking reliable references
Articles lacking reliable references from May 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Deutsch
Español
Français
한국어
Italiano
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Português
Русский
Simple English
ไทย
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last edited on 29 October 2017, at 04:09.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Dr._Paul_Bearer
mw-redirect
Dr. Paul Bearer

value: caption

value: img

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: colspan style

value: tr

value: th

values: text-align:center;background-color: #ddd; line-height: 1.5em

values: Edit section: Professional wrestling career

values:
/wiki/High_school
mw-redirect
High school

values: Edit section: World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment (1990–2002)

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Fireball_(wrestling)
mw-redirect
Fireball (wrestling)

values:
/wiki/WWF_Champion
mw-redirect
WWF Champion

values:
/wiki/Inferno_Match
mw-redirect
Inferno Match

values:
/wiki/Ministry_of_Darkness
mw-redirect
Ministry of Darkness

values: Edit section: Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2003)

values:
/wiki/Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling
mw-redirect
Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

values: Edit section: Managing The Undertaker and backstage work (2004–2005)

values:
/wiki/WWE_Friday_Night_SmackDown
mw-redirect
WWE Friday Night SmackDown

values: Edit section: Other WWE work and independent circuit (2005–2013)

values:
/wiki/John_%22Bradshaw%22_Layfield
mw-redirect
John "Bradshaw" Layfield

values: Edit section: Sporadic WWE appearances (2010–2012)

values:
/wiki/WWE_Bragging_Rights_(2010)
mw-redirect
WWE Bragging Rights (2010)

values: The material near this tag relies on an unreliable source. (May 2017)

values:
/wiki/Shaun_Ricker
mw-redirect
Shaun Ricker

values: -moz-column-width: 18em; -webkit-column-width: 18em; column-width: 18em;

values: Edit section: Awards and accomplishments

values: List of Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards

values:
nofollow
external free
http://percypringle.com/biography.html

values:
/wiki/Canadian_Online_Explorer
mw-redirect
Canadian Online Explorer

values:
nofollow
external text
http://percypringle.com/biography.html

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.percypringle.com

values:
nofollow
external text
http://percysposts.blogspot.com

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: The Four Horsemen (professional wrestling)

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
navbox-image
3
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: Category:American male professional wrestlers

values: Category:Professional wrestlers from Alabama

values: Category:Professional wrestling managers and valets

values: Category:All articles lacking reliable references

values: Category:Articles lacking reliable references from May 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Paul_Bearer
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: بول بيرر – Arabic

values: ポール・ベアラー – Japanese

values: Пол Берер – Russian

values: พอล แบเรอร์ – Thai

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Paul_Bearer rootpage-Paul_Bearer vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view