JO asked in Education & ReferenceHomework Help · 10 years ago

What are some necessary facts in the case of Gibbons v. Odgen?

Also, what the outcome of this case meant for Federalism?

I know it had something to deal with commerce, but more info please?

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce and Ogden's Firewhiskey was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[2] The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons

    Background

    The acts of the Legislature of the State of New-York granted to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive navigation of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that State, with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of years. They granted a license to Aaron Ogden. Thomas Gibbons operated a competing steamboat service between Elizabethtown, New Jersey and New York City that had been licensed by the United States Congress in regulating the coasting trade.

    [edit] Case

    Aaron Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York asking the court to restrain Gibbons from operating his steamboats. Ogden's lawyer contended that states often passed laws on issues regarding interstate matters and that states should have fully concurrent power with Congress on matters concerning interstate commerce. The monopoly, therefore, should be upheld. According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, to argue otherwise would result in confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies.

    The Court of Chancery of New York and the Court of Errors of New York found in favor of Ogden and issued an injunction to restrict Gibbons from operating his boats. Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision.

    [edit] Decision of the Court

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. The sole argued source of Congress's power to promulgate the law at issue was the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the Court had to answer whether the law was constitutional

    [edit] Importance of the case

    Steven Redd argues that the decision in Gibbons v. Ogden survived until 1895, when the court began to limit the congressional power with the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895). This marked the start of a 40-year period of history during which the Supreme Court limited the federal government's ability to regulate under the Commerce Clause. During the 1930s the Supreme Court changed course again and began to grant more federal authority under Commerce Clause, going beyond even the authority recognized in Gibbons v. Odgen. The Court went so far as to say that even activity entirely within one state could be regulated by the federal government if the activity had an effect on interstate commerce. See, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 US 1 (1937)

    However, Strict Constructionists (those who follow the Constitution literally) hold a different view of the meaning of Commerce Clause as established in Gibbons: that it was limited in scope because the decision could be interpreted to say that navigation only pertained to the federal Commerce Clause because it was necessary to business as it allowed for the interstate transportation of goods. Therefore, these unspecified individuals view the E.C Knight not as a radical departure, but as a continuation of the original jurisprudence.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • macko
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    itthat is only human nature. the certainty of the priority is....it makes the case that american politics is crammed with corruption...on the two facets of the aisle. i'm no longer so constructive that some rogue IRS brokers attempting to make lifestyles complicated on tea partiers compares to many of the shenanigans that went on say in the time of the Nixon adminstration or much extra those days in the time of the Bush administration and Bush years to attempt to earnings " an eternal Republican majority" as Karl Rove placed it.... yet i'm constructive, that some Republicans probable think of its worse than Watergate..that Benghazi is worse than Watergate etc... lol The tax code would not lots want simplification...which i will admit simplification isn't a undesirable element...yet what the tax code relatively desires for the final financial/financial well being of the rustic and citizenry at great is to have extra of a challenge that harkens lower back to in the time of the eras that our us of a did much extra helpful....the thought that the prosperous ought to pay a extra physically powerful share than what they pay now..and that great firms ought to have much less tax breaks, and that government exists to serve each and every of the individuals and isn't any longer only a device to boost and safeguard the wealth of the prosperous and the great firms they very own. Having mentioned this....i think of the capital gains ought to and could be raised to twenty-5%. i think of the suitable marginal tax fees ought to bypass lower back to what they have been earlier our decline began.....to be particular, to what they have been while Ronald Reagan took workplace say around 1980, which replaced right into a 70% suitable marginal fee. What i might do is shop the fees as they are actually for each individual...yet commencing around $3 hundred,000 bypass progressively to 40-one%, maybe around $4 hundred,000 bypass to 40 3%, then at $500,000 40 5%...and on and on...till as quickly as you're making over $ 3 million you're at a 50% bracket up till you get to declare while you're making over $10 million you're at a 70% suitable bracket. Yeah yeah ..i understand a number of you think of it particularly is loopy yet its relatively an exceptionally practtical plan...and that i assure that a) we would not have a funds deficit concern...and that our roads could be nicer and our bridges safer and we'd additionally be speaking approximately recuperating medicare and social secure practices for our voters as a replace of slicing them.....

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.