17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + Line 9:
Line 12: − + + + + +
expand
'''''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." <ref>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/1824_0/</ref>
'''''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." <ref>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/1824_0/</ref>
Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] famously expanded [[federal]] power:
The case was a constitutional showdown between former New Jersey Governor Aaron Ogden and his estranged business partner, a Georgian businessman and planter named Thomas Gibbons. Ogden charged Gibbons with operating a steamboat on the Hudson River in violation of the Fulton–Livingston Steamboat monopoly that controlled steam travel in the state of New York. In March 1824, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled for the Supreme Court that Gibbons' federal coasting license trumped a state grant issued to Ogden by the Fulton–Livingston syndicate.
==Commerge power==
Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] famously expanded federal power:
:"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.
:"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.
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.
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]].
==Further reading==
* Baxter, Maurice G. ''The Steamboat Monopoly: Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824'' (1972). 146 pp.
* Cox, Thomas H. "Contesting Commerce: Gibbons V. Ogden, Steam Power, and Social Change," ''Journal of Supreme Court History'' 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, pp 56-74
* Newmyer, R. Kent. ''John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court'' (2001). 511 pp.
* White, G. Edward. ''The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815-35.'' (History of the Supreme Court of the United States, vol. 3-4.) Macmillan, 1988. 1009 pp.
== References ==
== References ==