In his concurring opinion, Justice Johnson wrote, in part:
"A right over the subject has never been pretended to in any instance except as incidental to the exercise of some other unquestionable power.
"The present is an instance of the assertion of that kind, as incidental to a municipal power; that of superintending the internal concerns of a State, and particularly of extending protection and patronage, in the shape of a monopoly, to genius and enterprise.
"The grant to Livingston and Fulton interferes with the freedom of intercourse, and on this principle, its constitutionality is contested.
"When speaking of the power of Congress over navigation, I do not regard it as a power incidental to that of regulating commerce; I consider it as the thing itself, inseparable from it as vital motion is from vital existence.
"Commerce, in its simplest signification, means an exchange of goods, but in the advancement of society, labour, transportation, intelligence, care, and various mediums of exchange become commodities, and enter into commerce, the subject, [p*230] the vehicle, the agent, and their various operations become the objects of commercial regulation. Shipbuilding, the carrying trade, and propagation of seamen are such vital agents of commercial prosperity that the nation which could not legislate over these subjects would not possess power to regulate commerce."
* There were seven justices on the bench in 1824, but Smith Thompson did not take part in the deliberation or vote.
Case Citation:
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
To read the opinion in its entirety, see Related Links, below.
A concurring opinion is a decision by one or more judges. It means they have agreed with more than 1 person what your sentence and punishment should be.
You can take a look at the opinions at the link below.Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinionJustice Alito wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Kennedy joinedJustice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsberg joinedJustice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part
If more justices agree with a concurring opinion than with the opinion of the Court, the decision is called a plurality.
To provide a slightly different legal argument for the same opinion of the majority decision
A Supreme Court justice may choose to write a concurring opinion when he or she agrees with the majority decision, but wants to add perceptions or legal reasoning not addressed, or not addressed to that justice's satisfaction, in the majority opinion (opinion of the Court).
There was no dissenting opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden,which received a unanimous vote of 6-0*; however, Justice William Johnson wrote a concurring opinion in order to present points not specifically covered in Marshall's writing.Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Concurring means agreeing. So an concurring opinion is one when two people agree.
Dissenting means you disagree concurring means you do agree
Dissenting means you disagree concurring means you do agree
In US Supreme Court decisions, a concurring opinion is an opinion by one or more justices which agrees with the result the majority opinion reached but either for additional or other legal reasons which the majority opinion rests on. The writer of a concurring opinion is counted within the majority of justices who agreed on the ultimate result of the case, but disagrees in some way with the legal reasoning of the other justices. The concurring opinion sets forth that justice's own reasoning. In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.
A concurring opinion is a decision by one or more judges. It means they have agreed with more than 1 person what your sentence and punishment should be.
You can take a look at the opinions at the link below.Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinionJustice Alito wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Kennedy joinedJustice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsberg joinedJustice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part
If more justices agree with a concurring opinion than with the opinion of the Court, the decision is called a plurality.
concurring opinion. In a concurring opinion, a justice expresses agreement with the outcome reached by the majority but provides their own reasoning or interpretation of the law. This allows the justice to emphasize specific points or provide alternative legal analysis.
Majority, Concurring, Dissenting, and Per Curiam
The basis for a good debate.
The opinion is typically labeled "Concurring in Judgment."