Gibbons Vs Ogden Essay

In New York, individuals were allowed to operate steamboats within the state to carry out their business. Similarly, other states followed New York’s plan, and they began to implement the same laws. This, however, led to conflict because some states started to charge out-of-state steamboats a fee to navigate their waters. In one situation, the state of New York granted Aaron Ogden an exclusive monopoly to operate his steamboat between New York and New Jersey. Ogden suddenly becomes aware that another individual, Thomas Gibbons, is operating along the same route. Afterwards, Ogden claimed that New York has not given Gibbons the rights to operate on that route. Gibbons, on the other hand, claimed that he had the rights to travel on that route because of an act passed by Congress dealing with coastal commerce. Ogden ended up suing, and the New York court stated that only Ogden can operate on the route. So, New York upheld the monopoly it issued to Ogden. Gibbons, however, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The question became whether or not New York had the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Chief John Marshall ended
Federalism is basically a system adopted by a nation that allows two or more levels of government to have power over the same people and area. This, however, can lead to conflicts since the two governments might try to assert power over the same issue. This can be clearly seen in the Gibbons v. Ogden case. In this case, Chief Marshall was able to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to make clear that Congress, and not the states, has the power to regulate commerce between the states. Therefore, this conflict between the two levels of government was resolved by this court decision. If the United States had a unitary government, where all power resided the central government, this issue would not have