| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''''Gibbons v. Ogden''''' (1824) gave Congress a wide definition to "regulate commerce... among the several states." | + | '''''Gibbons v. Ogden''''' 22 U.S. 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824) was the first decision to interpret the [[Commerce Clause]], and it gave broad powers to [[Congress]] a wide definition to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." |
| | | | |
| − | In Gibbons v. Ogden, the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate navigation was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most famous and capable attorneys at the time: [[Thomas Addis Emmet]] and [[Thomas J. Oakley]] argued for Ogden, while [[William Wirt]] and [[Daniel Webster]], argued for Gibbons.
| + | Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] famously expanded [[federal]] power: |
| | | | |
| − | The State of New York attempted to grant a [[monopoly]] of steamboat operation between [[New York]] and neighboring [[New Jersey]]. | + | :"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." ''Id.'' at 189-90. |
| | + | |
| | + | He continued to hold that the commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." ''Id.'' at 196. |
| | + | |
| | + | In other words, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] thereby held that the power to regulate interstate navigation was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most famous and capable attorneys at the time: [[Thomas Addis Emmet]] and [[Thomas J. Oakley]] argued for Ogden, while [[William Wirt]] and [[Daniel Webster]], argued for Gibbons. |
| | + | |
| | + | The State of New York had attempted to grant a [[monopoly]] of steamboat operation between [[New York]] and neighboring [[New Jersey]]. |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:United States law]] | | [[Category:United States law]] |
| | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |