0
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.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How was commerce defined in Gibbons v Ogden?
Definition of Commerce in Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824)Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The subject to be regulated is commerce, and our Constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word . . . 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. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter."Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
What was the US Supreme Court decision in Gibbons v. Ogden?
(The Article Of Confederation)In Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), the court ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I gave Congressional power over commerce should extend to the regulation of all aspects of commercial interaction between the states, overriding the state law to the contrary on the basis of the Article VI Supremacy Clause. The decision favored Gibbons.ExplanationThe US Supreme Court found in favor of Gibbons, holding that Congress was specifically granted the right to control commerce between states in the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Congress had established an intent to exercise this right, to an extent, when they passed the Federal Licensing Act of 1793, but hadn't acted to curtail conflicting state practices. The Supreme Court opinion nullified a New York law that granted Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston an exclusive contract to license transportation of passengers and goods on New York waterways, which the State held was its right under the Tenth Amendment.According to Chief Justice Marshall, Congress had the exclusive right to make laws regarding trade between the states, and that federal law superseded state laws generally under the Supremacy Clause, and specifically under Article I, Section 8, as well as Section 9, which addresses how the Interstate Commerce Clause limits states' legal powers. (See below)Gibbons had broad application because many states had carved out water transit monopolies that inhibited free trade and travel between the states. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case has been called "the emancipation proclamation of American commerce" for the role it played in nascent capitalism.Article I, Section 8, Clause 3"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."Definition of Commerce to Include NavigationMarshall wrote: "The subject to be regulated is commerce, and our Constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word . . . 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. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter."Article I, Section 9, Prohibition on States Regulating Each Other"The 9th section of the 1st article declares that 'no preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another' . . . But the subsequent part of the sentence is still more explicit. It is, 'nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties, in another.' These words have a direct reference to navigation.'"Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
Who were the litigants of Texas v. Johnson?
Petitioner: State of TexasRespondent: Gregory Lee JohnsonAttorneysKathi Alyce Drew, for the State of TexasWilliam Kunstler, for Gregory Lee JohnsonSupreme Court VotesWilliam J. Brennan.........Pro.......Wrote majority opinionThurgood Marshall.........ProHarry Blackmun............ProAntonin Scalia...............ProAnthony M. Kennedy......ProC.J. William Rehnquist...Con.......Wrote dissenting opinionJohn Paul Stevens.........ConByron White.................ConSandra Day O'Connor.....ConCase Citation:Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)
Who wrote the opinion for the US Supreme Court case Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education?
Chief Justice Warren Burger was the official author of the unanimous decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1 (1971); however, the published opinion consists primarily of Justice Potter Stewart's draft dissent to Burger's original position. The Chief Justice made some revisions, but Potter Stewart had a much greater hand in formulating the opinion than Burger.ExplanationThe decision in this case was contentious and involved quite a bit of pressure and maneuvering on the part of the more progressive members of the Court, Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, with support from the usually conservative Justice John Marshall Harlan II. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Black initially wanted to overturn the District Court's decision, and were expected to be joined by Justice Blackmun, who often voted with Burger during his early years on the Court.Potter Stewart favored strong support for District Court Judge's decision, and circulated a draft of his planned dissenting opinion, should the Court side with Burger. Between Stewart's well-reasoned dissent and the progressive justices' arguments, Chief Justice Burger and Justice Black grudgingly conceded affirming the lower court ruling on constitutional grounds (Justice Blackmun was undoubtedly less resistant).Burger wrote a tepid first draft that the progressive bloc found unsatisfactory and which, after numerous rounds of comments and revisions, was finally scrapped in favor of Justice Stewart's work, with the addition of a few revisions from the Chief Justice.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who wrote invisible man?
Ralph Ellison wrote Invisible Man.
Who were the concurring and dissenting justices for Morse v Frederick?
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
Who wrote the majority and dissenting opinions in Mapp v. Ohio?
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)Justice Tom C. Clark wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John M. Harlan II wrote the dissenting opinion.For more information, see Related Questions below.
Who wrote the Supreme Court opinions in both McCulloch v Maryland and Gibbons v Ogden?
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the only opinion issued for McCulloch v. Maryland; the case was decided by a unanimous vote of 7-0.Case Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
Who wrote the Supreme Court majority opinion in Roe v Wade?
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the opinion of the Court; Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Potter Stewart and William O. Douglas wrote concurring opinions; Justices Byron White and William H. Rehnquist wrote dissenting opinions.Case Citation:Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)
What was the dissenting opinion for McCulloch v Maryland?
There was no dissenting opinion. The decision in McCulloch was formed unanimously, by a vote of 7-0. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the only opinion in the case.Chief JusticeJohn MarshallAssociate JusticesBushrod WashingtonWilliam JohnsonHenry Brockholst LivingstonThomas ToddGabriel DuvallJoseph StoryCase Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who wrote chicken and the edge?
Alan gibbons
Who wrote The Madcap Zoologist?
Ogden Nash
Who wrote parsley is gharsley?
Ogden Nash
What was the dissenting opinion in Gideon v. Wainwright?
The decision in Gideon v. Wainwright was unanimous (9-0); there was no dissenting opinion. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court, and Justices Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, and William O. Douglas wrote concurring opinions.The case citation is Gideon v. Wainwright,372 US 335 (1963)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who wrote the majority opinion in Gideon v. Wainwright?
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Which justice issued the majority opinion in Gibbons v Ogden?
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.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 Johnson's concurring opinion in its entirety, see Related Links, below.
What is a poem that ogden Nash wrote?
"If called by a panther, don't anther."
