The Federal Government Gets More Power | Gibbons v. Ogden
134,405
Published 2017-08-18
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/1789-1850/22us1
More sources:
www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/22/1.html
www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_…
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.
All Comments (21)
-
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-wi… Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-… Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+cour… Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-m… Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by… Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-… Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-ou…
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
This channel deserves more subscribes. I going to share this with my history and social studies teachers.
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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 Youtube. 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.
-
I had never heard of this case! Fascinating case, LOTS of notable ch.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Don't put a pie in your face, I might start crying No, Mr. Beat don't do it! 😮
-
Awesome video very addictive
-
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.
-
I agree with this decision.
-
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.
-
Where will you stream Pie and Sky thing (lol I know what it is)? YouTube, Facebook on Mr. Beat or Facebook on your personal account?
-
are u lightning mcqueen
