John Ogden Pros And Cons

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

The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It was recognized that each future generation would be facing new challenges that would have never occurred to the older ones, so it had the flexibility available by both interpretation and revisement to allow the newer generation to use the document as it was intended. As society and government grows, additions must be made to the Constitution to keep with the times. The Constitution is also governed by the thoughts of society at that time, seen in the implementation of the 18th amendment because of the urgings of religious and Women’s Suffrage movements. As it is also seen when the government grows weary of one president in office too long, seen in the creation of the 22nd amendment.

In Article 1, section 8 the Constitution states that Congress has the authority “…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers”. These powers are considered “implied” since they are assumed to be true without being specifically stated. The phrases “Necessary and Proper Clause” and “Elastic Clause” indicate a stretch in the government powers because it allows Congress to expand its right to meet new needs. The concept of implied powers has always been viewed as controversial thus, raising many questions and debates. For example, a famous court case, McCulloch vs. Maryland, was centered on the implied rights of Congress. The question that emerged was whether or not Congress can establish a national bank, and if it did, does Maryland have the authority to tax it. From the creation of the Constitution until this day the topic of implied powers raises as a reoccurring dispute. The concept is open to wide interpretation which created a division between loose constructionists and strict constructionists of the

federal government was one of the most volatile disagreements between the two major parties. Though the Constitution had seemingly established the guidelines to end this dispute by defining what powers the federal government may have, there were still disagreements over how loosely to interpret the arguably ambiguous document. The ambiguity of the Constitution rests almost fully in its “Elastic Clause”: the clause allowing Congress “the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers”. Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, manipulated this Elastic Clause to establish a federal bank, stating “[the Elastic Clause]...ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good” (Doc . 5).

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote the document with a set of strict ideals in mind to protect the American people from the government expanding its power. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in ways that have expanded the powers of Congress, making them most responsible for the growth of federal power. In the Constitution, the Commerce clause was created to regulate interstate commerce, but after the Supreme Court ruled on cases the interpretation changed and the federal government can now regulate commercial activities including minimum wage and labor. The Court broadened the “Necessary and Proper” clause when it ruled that Congress can establish a federal bank. Finally, the Court reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment so as to eliminate voluntary prayer in public or in schools. These are not the only illustrations of the Supreme Court expanding federal power, but by examining these three examples, expansion of federal power is shown.

Imagine the government of the United States of America without the constitution as the “supreme law of the land” (Art. VI). It is hard to imagine because an effective three branch system with checks and balances to ensure that the government does not turn corrupt is the most ideal form of government. In May, 1787, in an assembly room in Philadelphia, a group of 41 delegates got together and started mapping out our country’s future political practices. Finally, after many debates, on September 17, 1787, 38 out of the 41 delegates agreed on the document that is now the constitution. The hard part, though, was getting it ratified but nine out of the 13 states. Right away, five states were ready to ratify, but that still left another eight to go. Getting four of these states to accept the terms of the constitution proved to be a difficult job because many of the states requested amendments, or changes to the constitution. A bill of rights was soon after proposed and accepted, and was the push that made four more states agree to ratify the constitution. On June 21, 1778, the ninth state, and last needed to ratify the constitution, New Hampshire, validated the ratification of the new laws, and on March 4, 1789, the constitution officially became the supreme law of the land.

"Our Constitution, signed September 17, 1787, recently had its 230th birthday. Despite the changing world, our Constitution had stood the test of time. Has it been tested? Absolutely. But our government to this day is subject to this great masterpiece of a document. But with the world changing so rapidly, in ways our Founding Fathers may have never foreseen, will this great document continue to reign supreme? How does it address modern innovations like cell-phones, cars, and the internet? That, to me, is the most special thing about our Constitution. Written over 200 years ago, it continues to address the everyday questions of our modern government. The principles which were laid out by our Founders not only managed to address age-old issues such as slavery, but now are able to address this question of monitoring the internet.

There has been much controversy in the recent years regarding whether or not the U.S. Constitution is still able to deal with contemporary problems or if it is out of date. Most individuals who feel inclined to criticize the document emphasize that a lot of things have changed since it was first issued and that it is absurd for someone to consider that its principles still apply today. The people who devised the constitution were unable to foresee the conditions that the U.S. might one day experience. Even with this, it is difficult to determine whether the constitution is actually out of date or not when taking into account the multiple similarities between individuals in the late eighteenth century and the twenty-first century.

In the court case Gibbons vs. Ogden (eg. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)), the New York legislature granted a monopoly to operate steamships between New Jersey and New York. Gibbons intervened, claiming that this was going against what the commerce clause stated. Instead of focusing on whether the state could, the court focused on the issue of a state regulating commerce while Congress is also regulating it. The court decided against this by saying that pursuant to the commerce

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government has authority over interstate commerce as stipulated by the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution. Therefore, it almost appears as if reserved powers are a systematically inferior granule compared to the supreme authorities of the national government. Moreover, the Elastic Clause, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, as addressed in Article 1, enables the Congress “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution.” This insinuates that the Congress can carry out any action that is not directly specified in the Constitution but considered “necessary and proper” to exercise those enumerated powers that are specified. The effect of such clause was witnessed in the 1819 Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the state of Maryland imposed a heavy tax on a bank installed by the federal government to show its discontent with the government’s

Although the constitution was written over 200 years ago, the constitution continues to form the foundation to our modern day america. Nowadays the general consensus is that the constitution is a reliable document that is still relevant to this day. However the trust that we now place in the constitution wasn’t always present. During the time of its ratification there were two political factions ,the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, whose view on the power vested by the constitution clashed. Creating a massive political debate that would shape the future of the nation.

The Constitution of the United States of America is an ever re-interpreted document that is contested daily in council rooms and in courts across the land; It was made to be that way. The constitution works because it is open to evolution. For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because it’s framers wanted to balance between the national government and the rights of states. The Constitution evolves to meet the needs of a world different from the eighteenth-century one in which it was created.

As I watch and observe these documentaries by Peter Sagal, it is obvious that the points lead to our broken Congress. Though we may have recognized our political issues, we have done little to nothing to find solutions. Moreover our recent issues, privacy has been greatly noticed, but many of us do not understand what we are really doing. Seemingly, we do give our privacy away by posting on social media, however, is there a limit to it? Tapping into our cell phones, snooping to our emails, does the government really have a right to walk through our privacy? We may not also realize that the constitution was not meant to last forever per se, but it was meant to be changed over time. There was a disagreement at the era of the creation of the constitution,

In order to have an amendment changed or altered, their needs to be a ⅔ vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate saying that they agree with it. This system makes the constitution more flexible because it allows for The Constitution to be altered. If the constitution couldn't be altered, slavery would still be allowed under the constitution. Because most likely slavery would have been abolished, the fact that it could have been directly changed in the constitution allows for the constitution to be around longer. This would prevent people creating a whole new document to fix an issue rather than fixing the actual constitution. The process of ratification for a new amendment, alteration of a current amendment, or abolishment of an amendment is another reason why the constitution is elastic. The difficulty of this ratification process prevents a drastic change to the constitution, while still allowing change when it is

The U.S Constitution was written by James Madison and was ratified on July 21, 1788. Ever since people had trouble determining how it should be interpreted. When judges interpret the constitution, they are interpreting new facts to an established law that has been given meaning and has a historical background. Many people argue that it should be read how it was written who are known as Originalists. Then there are people who believe that the Constitution evolves as society does and they are known as Living Constitutionalists. Also, some feel that the goal is not do determine whether the constitution should be determined originally or as a living document, but to give meaning on the basis of facts. In my paper I will discuss arguments on how the Constitution should be read, whether it be from the Originalists or the Living Constitutionalist’s point of view, and why Living Constitutionalism is better. As society evolves, there are new and more difficult problems that occur, and they cannot be solved by reading the exact text of the Constitution which makes Living Constitutionalism better.