Questions:
In your own words, summarize the Supreme Court's decision using no more than two sentences. Be concise!
The ruling by Chief Marshal for Gibbons vs. Ogden case indicated that when navigation crosses the state border, it becomes subject of Congress due to commerce clause. Congress has full power when the state boundary is crossed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Why was it necessary for Marshall to take the trouble to explain why navigation should be considered as part of commerce?
A ruling by Marshall indicates that a trade clause allows navigation crossing state borders to become subject of Congress, and thus Congress has full power once the state border is crossed. Marshall took necessary trouble explaining reason navigation should be considered as part of commerce to make people understand the laws. His explanation on the necessity of the law was in line with Constitution, implying that any trucking service moving between Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, is subject to regulations from both the state and the federal government. It is a must for the state to respect the laws of other states as per the Constitution, and thus the truck service would also have to respect the laws of Oregon and California ( Landy, 2019 ). Marshal added that the power is given to Congress by the Constitution, such as the ability to regulate interstate commerce, expects all congressional law to abide by Constitution.
At the end of the document, Justice Jackson provides a characterization of Marshall’s Gibbons opinion. What do you think he meant by this statement?
Characterizing Gibbon's opinion by Justice Jackson was ideal as the statement helped to lay down the foundation for the prohibition of child labor, railroads, and pipelines as well as minimum wage regulation. The statement also meant to align better understanding of the Constitution on matters of interstate commerce, as far as state laws are concerned ( Wright, 2019 ).
EXTERNAL RESEARCH: In what way is Marshall’s ruling in the Gibbons case consistent with his other decisions, such as McCulloch v. Maryland, that related to federal versus state powers?
Marshall ruling in the Gibbons case is consistent with other decisions, such as McCulloch v. Maryland, where matters concerning the Constitution are taken into consideration based on the principle of implied powers. Both rulings from the two cases indicate that the Constitution allows both federal and state powers to be exercised equally. For instance, imposed tax by the federal bank in one state extends to the federal bank in other states ( Schwartz, 2020 ).
RELATED SCENARIO: If you operated a trucking service between San Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR, could you be subject to regulation by either or both of the States and the federal government? Explain
Both the State government and the federal government have powers to regulate a trucking company that is operating between Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California. For instance, as the federal government set safety standards for vehicles using the interstate highway system, a company instate business is subjected to taxes imposed by each state.
References
Landy, C. A. (2019). Bursting Boilers, Collisions, and Races: The Devastating Aftermath of the 1824 Landmark Case Gibbons v. Ogden on Steamboat Travel in New York. New York History , 100 (2), 269-286.
Schwartz, D. S. (2020). McCulloch v. Maryland and the Incoherence of Enumerationism. Maryland and the Incoherence of Enumerationism (February 10, 2020) , 19 .
Wright, R. G. (2019). The Limits of the Interstate Commerce Power: How to Decide the Close Cases. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper , (2019-8).
