Term papers writing service


Supreme court cases gibbons vs ogden essay

S Supreme case that held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, Granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. Timeline 1 Background In 1809 the Legislature of the State of New York allowed Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton to have exclusive navigation rights of the waters within the state of New York with steam and fire powered boats.

With the hopes of monopolizing the waters of other states, they petitioned in other states and territory, but only the Orleans Territory accepted their petition and they were given a monopoly on the lower Mississippi. Competitors became aware of their attempt to monopolize traveling the oceans and argued that what Livingston and Fulton were doing was illegal under the commerce power of the federal government which trumped state laws.

Timeline 1

Livingston and Fulton tried to undercut their competitors by attempting to sell them franchises or buy their boats. Each choice benefited them because they would still have buyers working under them or they would own the ships that they purchased from sellers. Therefore all traveling rights would belong to them which creates a monopoly.

  • But State monopolies were unpopular nationwide because they impeded the free market economy and, between 1819-1820, several cases challenging the New York steamboat monopoly were litigated in the New York Court of Chancery;
  • In the decision, the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause of the U.

Ogden won his suit and the injunction was placed on Gibbons. Therefore he believe his license provided by Congress trumped his license provided by the state since federal law trumps state.

Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court

The injunction was upheld and the Chancellor held that the New York law was not in conflict with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, therefore the grants were indeed valid. Gibbons subsequently appealed the decision and it was affirmed by the Courts for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, which is the highest court in New York. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, which allowed them to review the decision granted by the Courts for the Trial of Impeachments and Corrections of Error.

Webster claimed that to argue otherwise would result in confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies.

Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing as he did in New York that the monopoly conflicted with federal law. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons.

Issues May a state enact legislation regarding commerce, which confers a privilege that is inconsistent with federal law?

  1. Relying on the decision of the Court of Errors in Livingston v.
  2. This dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and in a landmark decision, Chief Justice Marshall addressed the scope of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The first of these case came before the New York courts in Livingston v.
  3. Constitution for the first time. In the decision, the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause of the U.
  4. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. But State monopolies were unpopular nationwide because they impeded the free market economy and, between 1819-1820, several cases challenging the New York steamboat monopoly were litigated in the New York Court of Chancery.

Do states have the power to regulate the phases of commerce which, due to the necessity of national uniformity, need their regulation to be prescribed by a single authority? Does a state have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state waterways inconsistent with federal law? Supreme Court on February 4, 1824 Bates 2010 pg 438. After a month of deliberating, on March 2, 1824, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and unanimously ruled in favor of Gibbons Bates 2010 pg 438.

In the decision, the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause of the U. Constitution for the first time. In this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress has the authority to regulate the commercial steamboat route between New York and New Jersey. It was assumed that this was legal in the Federal Licensing Act in 1793 and that New York law was in conflict with it. Therefore, the New York law was unconstitutional and was injunction against Gibbons was overturned.

Gibbons was free to operate his steamships. One particular rationale that Justice Johnson gives is the idea that the word commerce should have a broader definition than simply the exchange of goods. This is an essence a much more aggressive interpretation of the commerce clause and the idea of what commerce itself is. By asserting that the commerce clause gives congress that type of exclusive power Johnson makes a point to argue that even without the federal coasting act contradiction, the majority opinion cites is unnecessary in order to make reach the same conclusion.

The opinion was essentially more nationalistic than the opinion presented by the majority and paid much more attention supreme court cases gibbons vs ogden essay the powers of congress itself Hall and Patrick 2006, 35.

  1. Gibbons subsequently appealed the decision and it was affirmed by the Courts for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, which is the highest court in New York. Ogden and Gibbons, 4 Johnson Ch.
  2. But State monopolies were unpopular nationwide because they impeded the free market economy and, between 1819-1820, several cases challenging the New York steamboat monopoly were litigated in the New York Court of Chancery.
  3. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. Ogden and Gibbons, 4 Johnson Ch.
  4. The first of these case came before the New York courts in Livingston v.
  5. Supreme Court on February 4, 1824 Bates 2010 pg 438. Issues May a state enact legislation regarding commerce, which confers a privilege that is inconsistent with federal law?

Full Text of Opinions.