Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is granted to the US Congress by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, encompasses the power to regulate navigation.
Nothing in the Constitution precludes a local government from hiring a local company precisely because it is local. Other important cases enunciating the market participation exception principle are Reeves, Inc. v. Stake , 447 U.S. 429 (1980) and South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke , 467 U.S. 82 (1984).
On March 2, 1824, the Supreme Court ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden, holding that Congress may regulate interstate commerce.
The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution and that other powers are reserved to the states or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress and so its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal ...
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the court held that private parties could not validly purchase land from Native Americans. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the court struck down a New York law that had granted a monopoly on steamship operation in the state of ...
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate "commerce ... among the several states." In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this power extended to regulation over navigable inland waterways of the United States, which were an important hub of transportation in the early years of the ...
Madison) [21] [22] and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states, notably Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden. [23] [24] [25] [26]
in the united states district court for the . northern district of georgia . atlanta division . georgia coalition for the * people’s agenda, inc., as an *