Difference between revisions of "Gibbons v. Ogden"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(tag) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''''Gibbons v. Ogden''''' (1824) | + | '''''Gibbons v. Ogden''''' (1824) gave 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[Category:United States law]] | [[Category:United States law]] | ||
| + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 17:11, December 31, 2007
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) gave 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.
The State of New York attempted to grant a monopoly of steamboat operation between New York and neighboring New Jersey.