Gibbons Vs Ogden Case Analysis

In politics everyone has a different opinion and it seems as if they never come to a compromise. This issue has been going on for many years now. As early as when this nation was first being built. Throughout history there have been times when the government has been at conflict. Many of these conflicts include the question as to who has more power and who should. If the states should or the national government. Two important cases in the past that have helped answer these questions are McCulloch vs. Maryland and Gibbons vs. Ogden. Both cases present conflicts that brought among state courts, which later end up being appealed in the Supreme Court and rule differently twice. Both cases ruling clear show a clear example as how the national government has a supremacy over the state government.

In the case McCulloch vs. Maryland the main conflict was whether if the state government could interfere with national government laws. The state of Maryland had imposed a tax on the
Ogden the main issue involved the commerce clause’s true definition and how it should be regulated. The main conflict is when the state bans a man from doing business in the state but initially this man was granted a license by the national government. In this case two men who own steamboat businesses are competing each other. Ogden decided to file a lawsuit against Gibbons who had a national license to do business and wins in state court. However once again as with the McCulloch vs. Maryland case once reviewed in Supreme Court Ogden loses the lawsuit. The Chief Justice Marshall rules again that the national government has supremacy over state government.

These two cases had a major impact on federalism. Both ruling favored federalism stated the national government has supremacy over state government. This helped federalism have a growth. This happened because the Chief Justice Marshall favored the federalist. This helped them have an advantage over the