Gibbons V. Ogden (1824) Essay

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that power to regulate interstate commerce. It was given to congress by the commerce clause of the constitution. It was led by Chief Justice John Marshall. The debate in Gibbons concerned contending cases of adversary steamship establishments. The condition of New York gave Aaron Ogden a select permit to work steamboat ships between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat administrator, ran two ships along the same course. Ogden looked for an order against Gibbons in a New York state court, asserting that the state had issued him elite rights to work the course. Accordingly, Gibbons guaranteed he had the privilege to work on the course in accordance with a 1793 demonstration of Congress directing waterfront business. The New York court found for Ogden and requested Gibbons to stop working his steamships; on bid, the New York Supreme Court avowed the request. Gibbons spoke to the U.S. Preeminent Court, which surveyed the case in 1824. John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York 's selective award to Ogden disregarded the government authorizing demonstration of 1793. In coming to its choice, the Court deciphered the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution surprisingly. The proviso peruses that "Congress should have energy to manage trade among the few States." According to the Court, "trade" included articles in

　　　　The Dred Scott decision was significant because it was the first time since Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court said an act of congress was unconstitutional. It said the congress had no power to ban slavery in the federal territories; therefore, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. By doing this, the Court also said people in the territories had no right to decide whether their state should be a free or a slave state. This was known as popular sovereignty. The decision also hurt the new Republican Party which was trying to stop the spread of slavery. Further, this decision continued the conflict over slavery between the north and south and

Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.

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.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

Many northerners were upset with this ruling because they felt that the arguments against black citizenship went against the Constitution. They were also infuriated that this ruling hinted at the fact that slavery was legal in the Free states if your master brought you there. This ruling caused sectionalism to grow within the United States. (Nash 425)

This document indicates how the value and the role of the Supreme Court revolved over the course of American history. The idea of separation power and three branches of government wasn’t as clear as it is today. In fact, when the United States was first established, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, no one was clear on to what extend should the judicial power be

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 5, 2011, the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia expressed his conception of American exceptionalism. Based on the perspective of an originalist, Scalia believes that judges should strictly adhere to the Constitution. He utilizes a chauvinistic tone in order to effectively characterize the United States as an exceptional country built upon a gridlock of laws through the separation of powers. Scalia’s influential speech compels opposing judges to adopt his conservative ideals.

The Marshall Court has left numerous legacies in place in order to help establish this great nation. Chief Justice Marshall was a man that had many impacts on our Government from strengthening the authority of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, which gave the courts judicial review, to Gibbons v. Ogden, which gave the national government undeniable power over interstate commerce by ruling a New York steamboat monopoly invalid. There were many other cases as well that were important to the government’s growth; such as Fletcher v. Peck that made it where a state law can never overthrow anything that came against the Federal Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall presided over many cases and ruled over such cases in a way that he felt would benefit the ever growing American nation. Through it all he helped establish three legacies; helping to make the federal government supreme over all things that would control the economy, he also helped to open the pathway where there’s an increased federal part to be played in economic growth, and finally in an effort to further any and all new industrial capitalist economy, he helped to make permanent protection for corporations and private businesses so that the states couldn’t interfere. These legacies helped to establish a better American nation in more ways that we can know. A key part of all of this

“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

South Carolina wanted to nullify a federal law which was refusing to pay federal tariffs and by doing so South Carolina is going against the constitution. Jackson viewed that South Carolina was misusing

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

John Adams, on the last day of his term, appointed forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices under the Organic Act, which was an attempt by the Federalists to take over the judicial branch before Thomas Jefferson took the office. The commissions were not delivered before the end of Adam’s term, so Thomas Jefferson claimed they were invalid and did not honor them. William Marbury was one of the appointed justices of the peace and appealed directly to the Supreme Court when he was denied his position. Due to the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to make James Madison (Secretary of State) deliver the commissions.

“And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice.” ~Joseph Story. These were the words stated by a memorable jurist, but was becoming forgotten in recent years. Joseph Story was an American judge who lived from Sept. 18, 1779 to Sept. 10, 1845 in Massachusetts. He served in the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845. He went to college at Harvard University, and stood for the Democratic-Republican party. Joseph Story created a book called ‘Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States’, thinking flexibly to overcome Jefferson’s accusations to serve a term in Congress, and illuminated the world by bringing justice