Brianna Kalas
September 28th,2016
Pol 344
Gibbons V. Ogden
22 U.S. 1 (1824)
Facts: Aaron Ogden also know as the governor of New Jersey at the time and Thomas Gibbons were former business partners, who found themselves against one another in this historical case. Ogden was granted a New York license to run ships between New york city and New Jersey, while Gibbons had a federal license to run his ferry business from Elizabethtown New Jersey to New York city. Therefore, the two businesses were in competition with each other, leading Ogden to sue Gibbons in the New york courts. Ogden’s victory in the first case was based on his New York steamship license. Therefore, Gibbons made an appeal to the U.S supreme court with the argument that he …show more content…
149)”
Holding: In article 1 section 8 of the constitution congress is granted the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes.” Therefore, in regards to this case a federal license allows a party to operate on coastal waters regardless of the state requirements that those waters run though(Gillman, Graber, & Whittington, 2013, p. 150).
Reasoning: Under the commerce clause the federal government has the power to grant licenses to ships moving through coastal waters. In other words New York or any other state cannot make restrictions that are inconsistent with what the federal government has put into place. Although the commerce clause does not specifically say that the federal government has the power to give ship owners license to sail in certain waters, the powers are implied through other defined powers. Mcculloch V. Maryland introduced the use of implied powers when it came to the bank, which set precedent for implied powers to be exercised in this case(Gillman, Graber, & Whittington, 2013, p.
September 28th,2016
Pol 344
Gibbons V. Ogden
22 U.S. 1 (1824)
Facts: Aaron Ogden also know as the governor of New Jersey at the time and Thomas Gibbons were former business partners, who found themselves against one another in this historical case. Ogden was granted a New York license to run ships between New york city and New Jersey, while Gibbons had a federal license to run his ferry business from Elizabethtown New Jersey to New York city. Therefore, the two businesses were in competition with each other, leading Ogden to sue Gibbons in the New york courts. Ogden’s victory in the first case was based on his New York steamship license. Therefore, Gibbons made an appeal to the U.S supreme court with the argument that he …show more content…
149)”
Holding: In article 1 section 8 of the constitution congress is granted the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes.” Therefore, in regards to this case a federal license allows a party to operate on coastal waters regardless of the state requirements that those waters run though(Gillman, Graber, & Whittington, 2013, p. 150).
Reasoning: Under the commerce clause the federal government has the power to grant licenses to ships moving through coastal waters. In other words New York or any other state cannot make restrictions that are inconsistent with what the federal government has put into place. Although the commerce clause does not specifically say that the federal government has the power to give ship owners license to sail in certain waters, the powers are implied through other defined powers. Mcculloch V. Maryland introduced the use of implied powers when it came to the bank, which set precedent for implied powers to be exercised in this case(Gillman, Graber, & Whittington, 2013, p.