Gibbons v. Ogden
Montāžas Teksta
- When Ogden went to NY state and filed a complaint and went to court Gibbons's lawyer lost to the fact the state-issued license held precedent over the national.
- Gibbons with a national license was operating in NJ until a run-in with Ogden who held a monopoly in NY, with a license issued by NY state.
- Ogden’s lawyer argued that the state shared power with the federal government. After two hearings of the case in the state court, Ogden won both. It was then brought to the Supreme Court.
- Gibbon’s lawyer argued that Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution made Gibbons in the right and Ogden in the wrong. Meaning that the national license held more power.
- Chief Justice Marshall reviewed the case and determined that the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 should be used in a broad interpretation. He went and redefined the Commerce Clause.
- This made the case ruled in Gibbons's favor. It redefined the power between state and federal, stating that the federal government holds power over the state.
Izveidoti vairāk nekā 30 miljoni stāstu shēmu