Gibbons V. Ogden. Gibbons

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 3. The Clause states that the United States Congress shall power, “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to Congress. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez and reversed his conviction, holding that, “Section 922, in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause” (Source 1.)

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

United States v. Jones is one of many cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on. The case was one of the few cases that has a unanimous ruling. Evening though there was a unanimous rule there was still a debate on reasoning behind the ruling. The debate is between privacy given to a person’s property and a person’s expectation of privacy. United States v. Jones deals with a global positioning device attached to Jones’ car by officers without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the attachment of the global positioning device was a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Scalia gave the plurality opinion and their reasoning was that the intrusion on the car made it a violation of the fourth amendment.

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

Next, the Court examined the clause's phrase "commerce among the several States," concluding that the word "among" means "intermingled with." Accordingly, Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce does not "stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior." In other words, Congress may pass any law that regulates commerce, so long as that commerce is not wholly confined within a single state, and its power to regulate such commerce is plenary. Under this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress' clearly had the authority to regulate the commercial steamboat route between New York and New Jersey. It was assumed that the licensing act of 1793 did this and that the New York law in question

In the decision regarding Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall ruled that a state can't grant a monopoly when it is related to interstate commerce. This gave supremacy to the national government in issues regarding interstate commerce. Through his interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, John Marshall successfully increased the power of the national government.

Ogden was brought in front of Chief Justice, John Marshall (New York State Library, “Steamboat Timeline”). He will examine the Commerce Clause of Article 1, section 8 (“McBride, “Landmark Cases”). The clause read that “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states.” They first examined the word “commerce” which meant more than just articles of interstate trade but also, how the articles will navigate among the states (“McBride, “Landmark Cases”). This is where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause states that the federal government has the power to govern the interstate commerce among several states (“McBride, “Landmark Cases”). The decision invalidated the monopoly that the New York Legislature granted to Livingston, Fulton and especially to Ogden (McBride, “Landmark Cases”). As the result of this ruling, in-state licensing on waterways ended and competition was encouraged. This delighted Vanderbilt. This ruling will later benefit Vanderbilt when he leaves Gibbons to start his own steamboat business n 1829

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word "commerce" is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress' power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a

Ogden. In 1807, Robert Fulton invented the steamboat and it was able to be used as a transportation method on rivers. Since a new system of transporting was on the rise two men were quick to obtain a license to cross various bodies of water. One of these men was, Aaron Ogden got a license from the State of New York to travel between New york City and the Jersey Shore. He was a steamboat operator and he would run his steamer between New Jersey and New York City. He bought a franchise from Fulton. Ogden decided to have Thomas Gibbons as a partner in that franchise. Gibbons was also a steamboat operator. Their partnership wouldn’t last long. Gibbons began a dispute towards Ogden because of a license that he had. Ogden had an “exclusive license to operate steam boat ferries between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River.” Gibbons began to think that Ogden was challenging him. Gibbons wasn’t able to have access to the Hudson Bay, and therefore he sued Ogden. In other words, this was a problem between the national and state government. Ogden received state permission, and Gibbons received federal permission. So in the end it depended on which one has the highest power. Gibbons and Ogden took the case to the Supreme Court. When it was brought to the Supreme Court’s attention, they cited Article 1 Section 8 which was under the elastic clause. They used the commerce clause which gives Congress the

One of the many powers given to Congress by the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. This clause allows Congress to regulate commerce between foreign nations, states, and Indian tribes. The authority laid out authorizes Congress to pass laws that ultimately regulate activities of states and citizens and free the restraints of states who feel otherwise. Throughout the history of the United States, the Commerce Clause has caused controversy over the extent that Congress can justify the use of this clause to pass laws. The Supreme Court has been relied on to determine the constitutionality of the laws and settle the controversies. One of these controversies lies within the Supreme Court case of United States v. Lopez.