Research Paper on "Interstate Commerce Gibbons v. Ogden"

Research Paper 11 pages (4017 words) Sources: 8

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Interstate Commerce / Gibbons v Ogden

Throughout much of American history, the overall authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce has largely been accepted as a fundamental power, bestowed upon them in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This simply states that, "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and among Indian tribes." ("U.S. Constitution -- Article 1 Section 8") However, prior to the Supreme Court case Gibbons v Ogden this overall scope of authority was very ambiguous at best. As the states often viewed, that they have the power to regulate commerce within the state itself and at its borders. This is because there never was a strong central government under the Articles of Confederation to regulated trade / commerce. What happened was the Articles of Confederation loosely committed the states to one another through: friendship, commonality and mutual defense purposes. However, beyond this scope the overall powers of the central government were restricted at best. Over the course of time, this would lead to a number of different issues that would underscore the need for regulation of trade throughout the country. Where, Congress had the power to regulate treaties with foreign countries, yet they had little power to regulate trade among the states. This lack of authority would create an uneven set of standards that would vary from state to state. As a result, various disputes were quickly developing on rivers that border different states. Where, both the states and the federal government would claim to have the authority of regulating trade at its borders. Consequently, many states began to create their own form of currency and began to impose tariffs / trade barriers, in an effort to regulate the overall amount of commerce that is taking place. As the various disputes became more heated, there were calls to scrape the Article of Confederation and create a new document that would give the central government more power, the Constitution. ("The Articles of Confederation") Once ratified the new document would increase the overall authority of the federal government dramatically. Yet, the scope of the different powers afforded to Congress were constantly challenged in the courts, one of the most notable would include: the power to regulate commerce. Where, many states continued to hold on to the belief that they have this power over Congress. At which point, this would lead to the Supreme Court case Gibbons v Ogden, which would have a number of different causes and effects going forward. It is through examining the case itself and how it affected the United States going forward, that will provide the greatest insights as to how much authority Congress has in the regulation of interstate commerce.

Background Gibbons v Ogden

Thomas Gibbons was steamship operator, who had received his license from Congress allowing him to engage in interstate trade, using his different ships. However, the State of New York had passed its own set of laws licensing who could use its waterways for commerce. In this particular case, New York decided to give a monopoly of the use of the waterway to a group of investors led by Robert Fulton. One of the partners in the business was Aaron Ogden. The two different laws would create showdown, between how much power the federal government would have over interstate commerce, in relation to the states. This was brought to the forefront when Gibbons attempted to use the same waterways that the Fulton Ogden group, had been licensed to use by the state. At which point, Gibbons was denied access to the use of the state's waterways; with law enforcement citing the New York State law as the most relevant. Later on, Ogden would file a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of New York, asking them for an injunction against Gibbons from operating his ships on New York's waterways. At the heart of Ogden's argument's, were that states would often pass laws to regulate commerce within their borders. Therefore, under the Constitution, the states are given an equal amount of power to regulate trade in comparison with the federal government. The Court of Chancery of New York found in favor of Ogden, granting him the injunction against Gibbons using the waterways. At which point, Gibbons would appeal the case to the Court of Errors of New York (which upheld the lower courts decision). This would lead to the Supreme Court hearing arguments in the case. ("Gibbons v. Ogden")

Arguments Gibbons v Ogden

To support their views of the law, both sides presented a number of different cases and interpretations. According to the arguments presented by Gibbons lawyers, they felt that the State of New York was acting beyond the scope of the overall powers given to them. Where, they cited McCulloch v. Maryland, this is a Supreme Court case that took place in 1819. It is significant, because for the first time, the high court ruled that the federal governments laws are superior to state laws (when the two conflict). In this particular situation, the court interpreted the Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) of the Constitution to mean that the federal government has more power over the states, in regards to the various laws being passed. With the Supremacy Clause saying, "Under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." According to lawyers representing Gibbons, this can be applied to areas of trade and navigation. Where, the federal government has the right to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. They then cited the law passed by Congress in 1793 called C3. Under the law it says, "An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same. ("Gibbons v Ogden") In this situation when you apply the ruling form McCulloch v Maryland and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, it means that the federal laws would be superior to any kind of state laws. Then, there is a specific law that is granting Congress the power to issue licenses in regards to matters of trade. Therefore, the action that was engaged in by the state of New York in granting a steamship operator a license was in violation of the Constitution.

On the other side of the argument, the lawyers for Ogden would make a number of different claims based on their own interpretations and previous-based legal traditions. The most notable would include: a different interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. According to Ogden's lawyers, the federal government does not have the power to regulate trade under Article 1, Section 8. The reason why, is because the boats that were used by Gibbons were licensed with the intention of carrying freight. They were instead, used to carry passengers. This is Congress attempting to regulate movement, which is not a power granted to them in the Constitution. Next the attorneys for Ogden would cite the Tenth Amendment to support their claims. This says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under this interpretation there is no place in the Constitution that says Congress has the power to regulate navigation. Therefore, this power has been granted to the states. The lawyers for Ogden then, cited how under the Constitution the states are allowed to pass: quarantine laws, inspection laws, health laws and laws regulating trade within the borders of the state. Next Ogden's attorneys would cite the principals of shared powers. These are power that both the federal government and state exercise together such as the power to tax. Then, there are the traditions of all states being able to regulate trade going back to the earliest days after the American Revolution. Because of all of the different interpretations, precedents and principals cited; the lawyers for Ogden felt that the federal government had over stepped it bounds. As a result, they were pushing the court to uphold the injunction in place against Gibbons operating his steamships. Both arguments presented to the court would involve the overall scope of power that Congress and the states would have in regulating commerce. ("Gibbons v Ogden")

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. At the heart of the issue, was that commerce was more than just the transportation of goods from one point to another. Instead, it was the free low of ideas, goods and services among different groups. Under the broader definition of trade, this meant that the arguments made by Ogden (mainly the transportation of people was regulating free movement) were irrelevant. This is because the broader definition was allowing for the free flow of people from one… READ MORE

How to Reference "Interstate Commerce Gibbons v. Ogden" Research Paper in a Bibliography

Related Research Papers:

Commerce Clause in the Constitution Term Paper

Commerce Clause

The United States Constitution has provided the people of America with many useful ways to govern themselves. The Commerce Clause which is found in the Constitution is one… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (876 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Government / Politics

---

Gibbon When Names of Historians Are Mentioned Term Paper

Gibbon

When names of historians are mentioned, it is rare that Edward Gibbon Wakefield is among them. Perhaps for those historians or individuals who study this particular area he is… read more

Term Paper 5 pages (1686 words) Sources: 5 Topic: World History

---

Supreme Court in Lopez v. United States Term Paper

U.S. v Lopez Federalism

Federalism

Lopez v U.S. Federalism

The Constitution of the United States is a document which limits the power of the federal government by sharing that power… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (924 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Government / Politics

---

United States vs. Robert J. Stevens Dog Fighting Thesis

Court Opinion

United States v. Robert J. Stevens

Appellant was found guilty of violating sec 48 of chapter 3, part 1, Title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits… read more

Thesis 4 pages (1054 words) Sources: 2 Style: MLA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Granholm v. Heald Was a 2005 Case Essay

Granholm v. Heald was a 2005 case in which the laws in New York and Michigan that granted in-state wineries the right to sell directly to consumers but simultaneously prohibited… read more

Essay 2 pages (629 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>