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). The case moved to court and after fighting back and forth over what was constitutional and what was not, Gibbons lost and had his licence revoked. The fight then moved from licences to constitutional rights when Gibbons took the case the the supreme court (findlaw). Ogden argued that the state had complete control over interstate commerce. Gibbons argued that congress had sole power over interstate commerce and that monopolies contradicted federal laws. Both are wrong, Ogden more than Gibbons. Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution gives congress power over interstate commerce (Library of Congress). Congress can give power to the states, but that states have no control over how much power they get. …show more content…
The supreme court sided with Gibbons and gave him a licence again through congress.
The ruling claimed that any licence issued by congress overruled licences issued by other means. Its also pointed out that congress have sovereignty over trade with foreign countries as well as in the states. The ruling lasted for 71 years before congress became more limited. The Gibbons vs. Ogden case was thrown back and forth after that time as an example of congress's power. The case ruling was debated over the course of many years because of its vague details. It stated that congress had power but did not mention how much power or what the limit was. This lead to congress's power going up and down over the years
(findlaw). In the case Gibbons vs. Ogden I agree the the supreme courts ruling. New York shouldn’t have allowed the monopoly over boating, even though I’m not sure if monopolies where illegal yet at the time, it still contradicted laws. Gibbons had a boating licences issued through congress before they went to court, Ogden only had one through the monopoly. I don’t understand how the court of errors ruled in Ogdens favor. His case didn’t sound very solid, it was very obvious that he justed wanted to get rid of the competition, and his argument was New York vs. Congress. Gibbons had a legal boating licence obtained through honest means, taking that licence violated his rights as an american. I completely agree with the ruling, minus its vagueness. The government should have some power over the states instead of letting them carry on like little counties.
Maryland 's main arguments were as follows: 1) they had the right to regulate businesses and taxes within their state 2) the Federal government regulated state banks so why couldn’t a state regulate a Federal bank 3) the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to set up a bank, and therefore it was unconstitutional. On the other side, McCullough 's arguments were: 1) Congress had deemed the creation of a national bank as necessary and proper as a way to conduct financial operations 2) the Constitution is only a framework and not all national operations that may arise could have been listened 3) the federal government is supreme over the state government, and therefore Maryland has no right to question the Second Bank of the United States. In the end, John Marshall gave his verdict in favor of McCulloch and the federal government. In his explanation, he said because of Article I, Section 8 Congress could indeed do whatever they felt was necessary under the “Elastic Clause”. Also, Marshall referred to the Supremacy Clause when he said “As long as the national government behaved in accordance with the Constitution, it’s policies took precedence over state policies”. Finally, Marshall laid out the groundwork for the “implied powers”, which are the powers of the government which have not been explicitly granted by the Constitution.
The decision in the Gibbons v. Ogden case is, in my opinion, a very just
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
Bounds v. Smith was argued November 1, 1976 and the case was decided April 27, 1977 by THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth circuit. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. STEWART, J., post, and REHNQUIST, J filed dissenting opinions, in which BURGER, C.J., joined.
There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York; it involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly resolves around the president’s power of the line item veto. In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Line Item Veto Act into law. This would allow the president to get rid of a part of a bill and not disapprove the entire bill. The first time that President Clinton used this power he used it to refine the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, he got rid of a part of the bill that waived the Federal Governments statutory right to get back or receive $2.6 billion in taxes that were levied by the City of New York. President Clinton also line item vetoed a section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 this wouldn’t allow certain food processors and refiners to sell their stock to farmers to defer the recognition of capital gains. This is when the Snake River Farmers’ and City of New York went after Clinton for doing so this is where the case of Clinton v. The City of New York originated from. In this case there were constitutional issues that were raised, major arguments presented, and the final ruling from the Supreme Court.
...gain ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause. These cases include Murray v. Baltimore School Board, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Stone v. Graham. It also set the grounds for the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which set up the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a religious function is Constitutional or not.
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
Gitlow vs. New York is a case that influences the integrity of U.S legislative system importantly. In the 1925s, Benjamin Gitlow, a left wing socialist, published speeches of anti-government to advocate a new better communist government. His action caused the charge as unpopular and dangerous speech for the whole society from the New York state government, and his behavior became a court case. According to the website thefreedictionary.com, that “The opinions expressed in” “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” “formed the bases for the defendant's convictions under Sections 160 and 161 of the penal law of New York, which were the criminal anarchy statutes” (n.p). “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” ar...
The case involved several questions the Supreme Court had to answer. The first question was whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission. The Court decided that he did have the right because the appointment was issued while Adams was still in office and took effect as soon as it was signed. The next question was to determine if the law gave Marbury remedy. The Court found that the law did provide remedy for Marbury. Adams signed the appointment and Marshall sealed it thereby giving Marbury legal right to the office he was appointed to. Therefore, denying delivery of the appointment to him was a violation of his rights and the law provides him remedy. The third question was to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts o...
Gerald Benjamin and Stephen P. Rappaport, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science Vol. 31, No. 3, Governing New York State: The Rockefeller Years (May, 1974), pp. 200-213
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.
Restraint and Activism Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted, rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include the U.S. v. Kinder, where Congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine.
The case of Jackson v Attorney General scrutinised the relationship between the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty in a fresh manner, suggesting that there were restrictions to sovereignty where constitutional fundamentals were at risk . The courts were asked to examine whether the Hunting Act 2004 and Parliament Act 1949 were legal Acts of Parliament, on procedural grounds. It was argued that they did not comply with the legislative requirements mentioned in the Parliament Act 1911, and hence were invalid. Under the Act, it was an offence to hunt wild mammals with dogs except within limited conditions. The Bill was passed using a process under the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, without the approval of the House of Lords.
Where did we come from? A question that will always be asked by every human on this planet. Some say that we are of God’s creation and some say that we have gone through a long process called evolution and that humans and apes share a single common ancestor. Here I am going to compare and contrast between two of my favorite types of animals: The Lemur and the Gibbon.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...