Aaron Ogden Case Digest

465 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essays of the s cases gibbons v. ogden

Facts A monopoly in New York required steam boats traveling in the state to be licensed. If a boat was unlicensed, it would be forfeited to the owners of the monopoly. Aaron Ogden, an ex-governor of New Jersey, had a licensed steamboat he used to travel between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons, Ogden’s former associate, used his steamboat along the same path as Ogden to compete with him. Gibbons held a coasting license under a 1793 congressional act, but did not own a license from the New York monopoly. In 1819, Ogden brought suit against Gibbons in the New York Court of Chancery in order to stop the competition. The court ruled in favor of Ogden, deciding the 1793 congressional act did not conflict with the New York monopoly and Gibbons had no right to use his boat in New York. The New York Court of Errors affirmed the decision, and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue Did the New York law violate the Commerce Clause of …show more content…

Regulating commerce between nations could not exclude laws concerning navigation because this would mean no regulation on boats traveling into and out of states, which the states had been exercising since the “commencement of the government.” The Court argued Article I, section 9 discussing port preferences and paying taxes directly related to navigation and this was proof the Constitution itself discussed navigation in relation to commerce. Chief Justice Marshall also argued the power of commerce was not just with foreign countries, but also within the United States itself. This meant Congress could use their power within the states to regulate commerce. Congress’ power to regulate was plenary and had no limitations other than those the Constitution defined. Therefore, Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supremacy Clause made the act of congress superior to the New York statute, invalidating the New York

Show More
Related

  • Hazelwood East High School Case Summary

    582 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Elastic Clause And The Commerce Clause

    1241 Words  | 3 Pages

    New Court rises as well as new found interpretation and modifications. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court 's interpretation. Moreover, making the Commerce power is limited. As shown in various cases; the Elastic Clause hold within power. Granted that gives a looser interpretation for congress to work with. In the court case Maryland Versus McCulloch, left Congress with the power to control the traffic as it crossed the state line giving congress power of Commerce. This court case expanded the power of the Commerce Clause vastly, but, not sufficient enough to hold more power against the Elastic Clause. Although, many might object claiming the commerce clause is more powerful the issue is the clause is restricted towards solely commerce. Once again the Elastic Clause states congress can do what they deem necessary and

    Read More

  • Ashley Smith Case Summary

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ashley Smith was a young girl that was placed in a juvenile detention centre at age 15 for throwing apples at a mail man. Her short sentence quickly extended into a life sentence because of so many infractions within the prison system. Ashley suffered from extreme mental health issues and was place in a psychiatric prison facility, however this facility was shown in the documentary to be corrupt and their actions with Ashley were extremely illegal. Furthermore, Ashley wasn’t given the proper help and treatment that she needed, instead she was physically and verbally abused by guards in the prison, and she ultimately passed away in the prison. Her death is still being debated about whether

    Read More

  • Case Brief: McCulloch v. Maryland

    406 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Constitution, however, does not specifically prohibit Congress from establishing a bank. The Marshall court found that the creation of a national bank would affect the welfare of the nation; therefore, the Constitutionality of creating the bank was legitimate. The power comes from the “necessary and proper” clause, which is listed under the powers of Congress, not its limits, in Article I section 9. Justice Marshall shows how the word “necessary” may have different meanings depending on the context of the sentence and by the intention of the person using the word. In Article I section 10 the phrase “absolutely necessary” is applied with stronger meaning regarding imports or exports, and is different than the word “necessary” used alone in this case, which was intended to mean indispensable by the framers of the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.

    Read More

  • Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution

    1404 Words  | 3 Pages

    In an effort to limit the power of the national government, Congress created one without enough power to govern effectively, which led to serious national and international problems. One of the main weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation was its incapability to regulate trade and levy taxes. The states controlled all of their “cash flows.” Sometimes, the states were in debt because of tariff wars that they would engage in with one another.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Louisiana Purchase

    983 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Louisiana Purchase posed several significant moral dilemmas for President Thomas Jefferson, but violating his strict constructionist view of the Constitution was one of the many dilemmas faced over the Purchase from France that occurred on numerous occasions. Jefferson believed if a power couldn’t be found in the Constitution, it didn’t exist and reverted to the interest of the states. According to the Constitution, there is no power granting the President to make land investments or expend funds. President Jefferson also disagreed with Alexander Hamilton’s loose interpretation of the presidential powers found in the Constitution and the creation of the National Bank. American farmers and tradesmen used the port of New Orleans to ship their products down the Mississippi River for trade (Nesmith).

    Read More

  • Does Congress Have Too Much Power Over Commerce?

    2342 Words  | 5 Pages

    Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a prime example of Congress’ ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce.

    Read More

  • Alton Logan Case Summary

    616 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alton Logan's story cuts to the core of the America's justice system. "Well, majority of the public apparently believe that, but if you check with attorneys or ethics committees or you know anybody who knows the rules of conduct for attorneys, it's very, very clear-it's not morally clear-but we're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It's just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn't work without it," Coventry explained.

    Read More

  • Alan Trachtenberg's Incorporation Of America

    711 Words  | 2 Pages

    Munn v. Illinois (1877), is one of six cases, known as Granger cases that the Court decided along the same lines. Chief Justice Waite argued that the states may regulate the use of private property "when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good." In the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois case (1886), the Court ruled that states did not have the right to control interstate commerce that right belongs to the Congress. Justice Samuel Miller adds: “the power of Congress to make such reasonable regulations as the interests of interstate commerce may demand, without denuding the States of their just powers over their own roads and their own corporations.” In 1877, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission charged with regulating and monitoring interstate

    Read More

  • Gibbons V. Ogden Pros And Cons

    608 Words  | 2 Pages

    New York said that the Federal Coasting permit that Thomas Gibbons had was futile in New York waters. Hence this sets-up the extraordinary issue of the day state gov't v. national gov't. As New York and whatever is left of the United States at last gets into its head that the Constitution is the tradition that must be adhered to and that in Article IV, it expresses that "government laws supersedes state laws". So of course, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. He had a federal permit which is greater than the state one Ogden was arguing

    Read More

  • Cornelius Vandebilt

    658 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...artnership that would become extremely beneficial for both men. Even when he was helping Gibbons pilot his steamships, he still kept his ferrying business alive. Though deemed uneducated by many, he managed to learn much about the steam engine during his time under Gibbons. HIs knowledge of the steam engine would later allow him to cut out his competition, on water and on land. On May 5, 1815, the heirs of Chancellor Livingston gave Aaron Ogden a license to run his own steamboat between Elizabethtown and New York. Due to personal conflicts, Gibbons wanted to cripple Ogden. The only way for him to do this was to break Ogden’s monopoly by finding a way to declare that his monopoly was illegal. In the historic Gibbons v. Ogden Supreme Court case, Gibbons appealed to the Court that against Ogden’s monopoly. On March 2, 1824, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons.

    Read More

  • Tenth Amendment Essay

    1467 Words  | 3 Pages

    Gibbons had received his permit from the federal government. The New York court sided with Ogden and ordered Gibbons to stop operating his steamships. Gibbons then proceeded to take this to the Supreme Court. John Marshall sided with Gibbons and said that New York’s grant to Ogden violated the federal licensing act of 1793 and for the first time the commerce clause was interpreted. It was concluded that the government had the power to regulate this because of the commerce clause.

    Read More

  • Gibbon Pros And Cons

    478 Words  | 1 Pages

    Around 1824 New York allowed a monopoly over the boats crossing waters near the state. Aaron Ogden got his steamboat licence under this monopoly and was allowed access to the water between New York and New Jersey to trade. Thomas Gibbons, Ogdens competitor, also had a boating licence only his was given to him an act of congress. Ogden filed a court complaint asking to have Gibbon’s licence revoked. His main claim was that the monopoly was completely legal and was able to control the water because New York's governor gave them permission (findlaw).

    Read More

  • Hartland Memorial Hospital Case

    583 Words  | 2 Pages

    The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).

    Read More

More about Aaron Ogden Case Digest

Open Document