The Federal Government Gets More Power | Gibbons v. Ogden
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! amzn.to/45Wzhur
What Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?
In episode 16 of Supreme Court Briefs, two dudes fight over whether or not one can operate his steamboat in New York. In the end, the federal government just gets more power.
Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Matt Beat (Electric Needle Room). All images found in public domain.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/...
More sources:
www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme...
www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...
New York State
1808
The New York state legislature grants Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton exclusive privileges to operate their steamboats on the rivers of the state. If those names sound familiar, it’s because Livingston was, I don’t know, A FOUNDING FATHER OF THE UNITED STATES, and Fulton, I don’t know, BUILT THE FIRST WORKING STEAMBOAT. Anyway, those two had exclusive privileges on the rivers of New York, meaning, no one else, meaning there’s no competition, meaning it’s a monopoly, baby.
Two other dudes, Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, bought a franchise from Livingston and Fulton so they could operate steamboats in New York, even though they hated the monopoly Livingston and Fulton had and at first tried to get around it.
Three years later, Gibbons and Ogden’s partnership ended. However, Gibbons kept on sending his steamboats from New Jersey to New York, despite no longer having the license to do so. Gibbons argued he could because he had a federal license from Congress, thanks to an old law regulating trade along the coast. Oh Gibbons, you sneaky person, you.
Obviously, Ogden, who was the former governor of New Jersey I might add, was very angry about this, as his former partner was taking away business from him by skirting passed a state law. Ogden made a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York, asking them to stop Gibbons from operating steamboats there.
Gibbons got a lawyer named Daniel Webster, a famous Congressman and later Senator and Secretary of State, to defend him. Webster argued that Congress had the final say over buying and selling stuff across state lines thanks to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The what?
The Commerce Clause, punks: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
Congress can “ "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
But the Court of Chancery and Court of Errors of New York both said “nuh-uh,” and sided with Ogden, forcing Gibbons to stop his steamboat operations there.
So Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. As the Court heard arguments in February 1824, the biggest question for them to answer was: “Was New York able to regulate commerce within its borders, even if that commerce depended on commerce in other states?” The Court said “no.” On March 2, 1824, the Court unanimously voted in favor of Gibbons. They agreed with Webster’s argument, that the Congress’s power overruled New York’s due to the Commerce Clause, but they also argued the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution guaranteed this.
Chief Justice John Marshall, aka Lil’ Jon, defined the word “commerce,” saying it included navigation on interstate waterways. He even defined the word “among,” saying “among the several states” meant basically mixed together. So whenever state laws conflicted Congress could step in.
Gibbons v. Ogden was the first of several Supreme Court decisions that increased the power of the federal government over the states. It greatly broadened the power of Congress, and that trend has continued to the present day.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
I can´t belive John Marshall defined the words "Among Us"
Using lots of your Supreme Court videos with my AP US History Kids. They're awesome!
Awesome! Thanks for sharing them :D
Moose!
I loled at the intros of the Roberts. And at lil Jon. Jesus, I never learned this case. It's dry but important.
Keep up the good work!
Also, you can just credit me as Will Fox in future patreon boxes. I'm treating that nickname like obiwan in a new hope, if you catch my drift.
+The Exploration Sure thing. The next video won't have it, but the one after will, Will.
@@iammrbeat k
5
This channel deserves more subscribes. I going to share this with my history and social studies teachers.
Thanks Oscar. That means a lot! :D
This is the absolutely perfect i had no idea what this was and i have to do a report on it. Thanks to this video i now know all about it. So thank you so so sooo much. very much appreciated!!!
Mr. Beat, you should do a video on the 1942 SCOTUS case Wickard v. Filburn, which also has to do with the Commerce Clause. The Court ruled that a man growing more wheat than what the New Deal permitted was violating the Commerce Clause, because him growing too much wheat supposedly affected interstate commerce because he wouldn't buy wheat on the open market if he grew enough for himself.
Hey Mr. Beats, I would like to thank you very much for Texas v. White. I am very grateful. You are my favorite person on CZcams. That is the first thing I would like to say. The second is to recommend you to do a story time video on the French Revolution. That would be cool.
+Jett For President It was my pleasure. Glad I was able to squeeze that one in. Also, a video about the French Revolution has been on my to-do list for a very long time, so I appreciate you suggesting that. Happy holidays to you!
Thank you. Happy Holidays!
I had never heard of this case! Fascinating case, LOTS of notable ch.
If this video gets at least 100 likes in its first 48 hours of release, I will livestream me putting a pie on my face.
Mr. Beat Then you'll be a Sweet Beat?! No? They're not all gems.
I wonder how many youtube accounts I can create in 48 hours :D
haha!
UPDATE: It looks like the pie in the face is happening. I will be livestreaming it on Facebook probably on Tuesday. Stay tuned for details. Thanks to everyone who everyone who liked this video!
I liked and shared. Blame me~ LOL! .
This case also gave us the Dormant Commerce Clause, which is a legal doctrine that courts have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce.
For example, it is lawful for Michigan to require food labels that specifically identify certain animal parts, if they are present in the product, because the state law applies to food produced in Michigan as well as food imported from other states and foreign countries; the state law would violate the Commerce Clause if it applied only to imported food or if it was otherwise found to favor domestic over imported products. Likewise, California law requires milk sold to contain a certain percentage of milk solids that federal law does not require, which is allowed under the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine because California's stricter requirements apply equally to California-produced milk and imported milk and so does not discriminate against or inappropriately burden interstate commerce.
As a former resident of Webster, Massachusetts, I'm a little disappointed you didn't mention that Daniel Webster was a Senator from my state. My old hometown is named after him, though it wasn't founded by him.
AWESOME VIDEO!
Thank you :D
I feel like this was less The Federal Government getting more power and more of the Supreme Court defined what one of their powers (the commerce clause) was.
Awesome video very addictive
Love the steam boat part 😂😂
ha! Thank you!
Don't put a pie in your face, I might start crying No, Mr. Beat don't do it! 😮
If putting a pie on my face helps my channel grow, then by golly I will do it.
Where will you stream Pie and Sky thing (lol I know what it is)? CZcams, Facebook on Mr. Beat or Facebook on your personal account?
+E for Every Gamer + Probably on Twitter!
Ok, so it will be on Facebook
I continue to be impressed by this series. I do think the feds have too much jurisdiction, but not here. Mostly that instrumentality of interstate commerce stuff, such as telephones and roads. _Gonzalez v. Raich_ made it much worse.
And health care.
I agree with this decision.
are u lightning mcqueen
yes, he made the cars movie.
i got a serious question, so How did the gibbons v ogden (Supreme Court Case) affect the National government?
Basically, the broader you interpret the commerce clause, the more laws Congress can pass and use the commerce clause as justification, as long as the law in some way deals with commerce or potential commerce between the states.
Danial what happened to your hair!? Lol!! 1:43
I thought, what was his name was that his name, the guy with the awesome beard and the glasses that also had two lenses by his peripheral vision which is a great idea by the way, the inventor that ran as a third party what the heck was....... I think Horace Greeley? I know that's a lot of political names to take in at once in your series(es) but I'm sticking with that name I know I have the description correct oh wait no it I guess first steam locomotive engine that was it okay alright glad I work that out but now I got to go check his name and I'm not having a good day
My elementary school was named after Robert Fulton so that's something
Hey Mr. Beats, I have a history fair project. I wanted to do 3 Supreme Court Cases that deal with the issue of states right's and federalism. Can you make a video of Texas v. White, to help me? I would deeply appreciate that.
+Jett For President When do you need it by? I have videos planned already for the next several weeks.
Well, do you have videos planned for December?
And my history fair project is do by December 15, 2017.
+Jett For President Pretty much through November.
So can you do it in early December, before the 15th?
Wow,I also have a question why did you mention the two people,the founding father and inventor,even if they had no effect,and I think Gibbons should not have won!
+Mummy Neo Because they're the ones who started the monopoly on NY state waterways.
Mr. Beat OK Thank you Mr Beat!
At 3:33 the answer is YES! OVERRULE Wickard v. Filburn!!!! -- And Katzenbach v. McClung!!!
question: Webster HAD NOT been a senator or secratary of state at the time he was hired by Gibbons? Right?
He was the president
President During this time: James Monroe
Chief Justice: John Marshall
Argued February 5, 1824
Decided March 2, 1824
Case Duration: 26 Days
Decision: 6-0 in favor of Gibbons
Mr. Beat, remember when you worked at Aubry Bend and we did broadcasting? Where are those videos can we access them?
Hey Brady! Of course I remember. I still have the videos, but they are no longer public. I can send you private links if you get me your email address, though.
Bmsorbin@bluevalleyk12.net
Ok, thanks. I will send you some links.
Hurry if you can!$
I Support: Indecisive
How about this for an Amendment:
1) No government agency may search a person or their property without a warrant; freely given consent of the same; probable cause that evidence exists and that an emergency situation exists; the police being informed by a private citizen that a life-threatening emergency exists; or except as needed solely for the protection of government operations. Consent shall not be considered freely given if, for example, the government or any of its employees requires a search in order to exercise freedom of movement, speech, etc. For example, an airport security screening as presently constituted would be unconstitutional as long as the Department of Homeland Security requires all passengers to be screened before or during their flight. If an airline, of its own free will, requires you to be screened by a government official before boarding, that would be Constitutional.
2) Federal law can only 1) provide punishment for violation of the Constitution, or 2) regulate activities that either cross state lines, occur on Federal property, or 3)v directly affect persons who clearly intend to engage in interstate commerce, and whose ability to do so could be affected by the activity.
Excuse me, but I think I just dropped something. My JAW! I'll be leaving an apple on your desk.
Commerce clause needs to be put back in it's box
"I have more videos?"???? Are you not sure?
I'm just leaving open the possibility that we are all living in a simulation.
Yes way to much power
Already at 55!
I might just have to go buy a pie this weekend. :D
3:01
If the justices were Gen Z kids:
Among = "aMoNg Us!!!!!11!!!"
😂
'Lil John
3:00
Marbury v. Madison 1803!
+Briana15 I actually are covered that case 5 years ago!
czcams.com/video/m1VAmWxpLjU/video.html
I like pie.
+mikah carpenter On your face?
yes!
3:02 Us
I think the federal government has too much power. As they have grown, the systems of checks and balances, especially the ability of the state to check the federal government, has NOT been increase, expanded, or changed to keep up with the changing of times.
We need a way that the states can hold.the federal government accountable that doesn't require picking up a gun an dying for it
A lot of the stuff we take for granted can only be provided by the federal government. I doubt you would be ok with giving that stuff up.
I don't disagree, but I think that our state government is basically a glorified baby sitter for the federal government. At this point, population in each state is high enough that blanketing 330 million people with one law is a bit generalized, especially in a diverse environment such a America.
My example would be the recent overturning if Roe V Wade. I personally, am against abortion, but I'm even more against the government dictating what happens to an Americans body.
What if the states could overturn their ruling with a 3/4 majority vote for the state legislatures? Can they do that? Is there a system for keeping poor Supreme Court rulings from being upheld?
I appreciate you commenting back it really means a lot to me as I truly enjoy your channel.
I'm also not saying that the federal government is wildly out of control, but I do believe that they are much less afraid to exercise their power today and even step over the lines. Long gone are the days of Grover Cleveland and presidents who say that's not within my power
Mr. Beat why do you sound like such a Libertarian when you spoke about a not so known Founding Father and our Federal Government ? lol
I think you know I'm a Social Democrat also I thought you agreed with the Justice Democrats lol www.justicedemocrats.com
Ever since the 1930s, congress keeps doing more and more things it was never constitutionally authorized to do. Like the federal minimum wage. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says Congress can impose a national minimum wage.
But the Constitution does allow Congress to regulate commerce. Minimum wages laws require corporations to use a portion of the money they make from commerce to pay their employees. That is a regulation of commerce.
Good video, better video without the dumb puns and MS paint drawings
The thumbs down button turned BLUE!
Do you think this case could be overturned by the new New Jersey waters case. Wickard vs filburn also needs to go to hell. Do you think the current SCOTUS will put the commerce clause back in it's box