0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Was Gibbons v Ogden the only case in Supreme Court history that went without a decision?
The US Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824). See Related Questions, below, for a discussion of that decision.
What did the Supreme Court rule in the case Gibbon s vs . Ogden?
The Supreme Court of the United States had jurisdiction in Gibbons v. Ogden because it made its way up the appeal process to that level. The case is significant because the Court decided that the federal government had power to regulate interstate commerce.
What US Supreme Court decision affirmed the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce?
The Court first supported Congress' regulation of business under the Interstate Commerce Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), and later upheld this authority in a number of other cases.Another important landmark case involving the Interstate Commerce Clause and civil rights was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, (1964).Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.
Who made limericks?
Ogden Nash
Who made limericks popular?
Ogden Nash
What has made Greg Ogden famous?
Greg Ogden is a famous author of religious books about Jesus. Greg Ogden is also a motivational speaker and sermon information developer. He was a Pastor in Chicago area.
Does a gibbon have a vertebrate?
Gibbons have a backbone, which is made up of vertebrae.
Who was the actor that made the commercials in the 70's for grape nuts?
Euell Gibbons
When was The Principle of Evil Made Flesh created?
The Principle of Evil Made Flesh was created on 1994-02-24.
What is a sentence using the word principle?
He made the decision based on forethought and principle.
Describe and explain the significance of the Gibbons v. Ogden?
Gibbons was the first case in which the Supreme Court of the US held that Congress had the power to regulate commerce among the states via the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Until this case, Congress hadn't exercised its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.Most states had established laws regulating commerce under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the US government had little power to intervene or influence state laws; the Constitution elevated the authority of the United States over the states in many areas, emphasizing national supremacy over state sovereignty. The States resisted this intrusion by arguing they retained sovereign rights to control their own territory under the Tenth Amendment and that they hadn't ceded this right when the Constitution was ratified.The net effect of conflicting state laws was restriction of trade and travel between the states, representing an inconvenience to travelers and inhibiting national economic growth. Gibbons v. Ogden has been called "the emancipation proclamation of American commerce" for its support of capitalism and a free market economy.This principle is explicated in Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden:"In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."The decision in this case represented a tidal shift of power between the states and federal government, dictated by the Article VI Supremacy Clause, as did many of the Court's decisions during Marshall's tenure. Although the concept of nationalism is often decried, in this instance federal supremacy was necessary to national economic growth.Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
How did the John Marshall continue to expand national government power in the Gibbons v Ogden case?
In Gibbons v. Ogden Marhsall firmly established the superiority of the US Constitution to all state law, where the two intersect. There was debate whether if state law was made first, if it could be considered superioir, Marshall settled this and said that all state law had to be made within the realm delegated to the states, and if it could possibly affect a federal realm, or another state's sovereignty, then the federal law was supreme. He also, in keeping with his decision in McCulloch, continued his argument and codification of ancillary powers that the constitution implicitly reserves for the National government. He admits that there are areas were the powers of the states and the powers of the nat'l government are concurrent, but again asserts nat'l dominance. He argues that if congress is not given an expansive view of its powers, we are trapped to the shortcomings of the articles of confederation, and that one state could in effect tax the rest of the states by restricting or taxing a good. In the Constitution he relies primarily, for textual support, on Art. 1 § 8 cl. 3 and Art. 1 § 10.
