Gibbons V Ogden ( 1824 )

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

The Supreme Court and Chief Justice Marshall rejected Ogden’s argument with a unanimous (6-0). The justices agreed that the Commerce Clause did, indeed, give Congress the power to oversee the operation of steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Hence, the license given to Gibbons by the government to run a ferry service antiquated the license to run a ferry service given to Ogden by the state of New York. As a result of this decision, State-issued ownership of island rivers and channels ceased and commercial competition was heartened. The Gibbons decision established

The Commerce Clause was originally designed for congress to regulate commerce among the states. After this decision, Congress can now go beyond the external boundary (Smith, pg. 317). Being one of Chief Marshall 's most important cases, Gibbons v. Ogden vastly expanded the Commerce Clause (Smith, pg. 315). The case of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 allowed Congress to interpret their powers to regulate any type of commerce that went through state lines including modes

“Is the U.S. Constitution a living, breathing document?” Well, there could be lots of answers to this question. This helps our government define our rights and freedoms. The

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

My area of interest is behavior analysis but for the purpose of this discussion I chose this case.

The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that a violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule does not require the courts to suppress any evidence found in a search when officers were pursuant to a valid warrant.

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. At the same time, the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Here is the social paradox that is the Supreme Court. They are supposed to declare an act constitutional or not, but that is fundamentally flawed based on the cultural atmosphere at the time. Each justice is a victim of society, just as every person in the United States and the world is, therefore they are subject to the whims of their culture and how they grew up, leading to some less than optimal results. The Supreme Court is intended to work as a moral compass for the nation, deciding what is good and bad, but society can be fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by many cases brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is a clear

This clause has allowed the national government great liberties in enforcing a number of regulations,in the name of preserving their power over interstate commerce. A clear use of this power can be seen in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden(1824). In this case a dispute arose when New York granted a monopoly to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton, which they in-turn used to license Aaron Ogden to be the sole steamboat operator between New York and New Jersey. Aaron Ogden used this as a platform to sue Thomas Gibbons who was operating a competing ferry between the two states. Gibbons argued that his license had been issued under the 1793 act of Congress and therefor was not subject to a monopoly agreement at the state level. Ogden won the initial suit and Gibbons appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court overturned the states ruling. During the course of the proceedings Chief Justice John Marshall helped us to further define the commerce clause as “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.”(Gibbons v. Ogden 1824). This decision was a pivotal point in the history of the commerce clause and is one of the most widely referenced cases on this subject because it shows how this clause can work to the benefit our federalist system. While both the state and federal Government have

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

It is important because it brings a balance of power by allowing states to make their own laws and still keeping the national government as the supreme decider for situations when conflict arises. In Gibbons v. Ogden, New York tried to monopolize on steamboat operations. The federal government has the power to regulate any and all interstate activity under the Commerce clause and this is enforced through the Supremacy clause. New York exercised an authority that is reserved to the federal government through the Commerce clause. As a result of the Supremacy Clause, Congress is given power over the states. Any nature of interstate commerce fell under federal government jurisdiction. In the Gibbons v Ogden case, the Supreme Court upheld broad congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, stating that the New York Law was invalid by virtue of the supremacy clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress. This case is an example of federalism were the Federal government is given a power that over the states and supersedes States’

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

As a Federalist, Marshall exerted great influence over the other members of the Court to support federal supremacy over state sovereignty. The Supreme Court's decision in Gibbons used the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8,Clause 3), Article I, Section 9, and the Supremacy Clause to prevent states from subordinating the federal government to state laws. The Marshall Court tended to fall to the nationalist definition of federal power, implying that federal law had power over that of the states. While many saw this as doubting state rights, the Court's decisions usually benefited the whole of the nation, whereas state statutes were designed to benefit and create income only for the individual state. The ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden

To begin, the author noticed the initial positions of the justices of this case. The first question was whether the case had standing, which Justice Burger believed it didn’t. However, the majority of the justices agreed it did so they moved away from the issue of standing but instead to the issue of