Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Kenneth Holland Kansas State

1
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

• Kenneth Holland
• Kansas State University
• July 12, 2005

2
Fifth Amendment

• Nor shall private property be taken for public
  use, without just compensation.

3
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• Facts of the Case
• New London, a city in Connecticut, used its
  eminent domain authority to seize private
  property to sell to private developers. The city
  said developing the land would create jobs and
  increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others
  whose property was seized sued New London in
  state court.
• The property owners argued the city violated the
  Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which
  guaranteed the government will not take private
  property for public use without just
  compensation. Specifically the property owners
  argued taking private property to sell to private
  developers was not public use. The Connecticut
  Supreme Court ruled for New London.

4
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• Question Presented
• Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings
  clause if the city takes private property and
  sells it for private development, with the hopes
  the development will help the city's bad economy?

5
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• Conclusion
• No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John
  Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's
  taking of private property to sell for private
  development qualified as a "public use" within
  the meaning of the takings clause. The city was
  not taking the land simply to benefit a certain
  group of private individuals, but was following
  an economic development plan. Such justifications
  for land takings, the majority argued, should be
  given deference. The takings here qualified as
  "public use" despite the fact that the land was
  not going to be used by the public. The Fifth
  Amendment did not require "literal" public use,
  the majority said, but the "broader and more
  natural interpretation of public use as 'public
  purpose.'"

6
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• Six states allow condemnations for private
  business development alone Connecticut, Kansas,
  Maryland, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.
• Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court,
  in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer,
  JJ., joined.
• O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
  which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas,
  JJ., joined.

7
Journal Write 1

• Do you agree or disagree with the Courts
  decision to allow cities to use their eminent
  domain power to promote private business
  development?
• What mode of constitutional interpretation did
  the majority employ in interpreting the Fifth
  Amendment words public use?
• Is this type of constitutional interpretation
  acceptable to you?

8
The Steamboat

• In New York, Robert R. Livingston obtained a
  statewide steamboat monopoly on the stipulation
  that he would put in operation a steamboat that
  traveled 4 mph. On August 18, 1807, Robert
  Fulton's 150-ft Clermont made its famous
  successful run of 150 mi from New York City to
  Albany in 32 hours, or about 4.7 mpha trip that
  took four days by sailing sloopand Fulton
  received a patent for its construction.

9
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

• U. S. Constitution
• Article I The Congress shall have power . . .
  to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
  among the several states, and with the Indian
  tribes.
• Article VI This Constitution, and the laws of
  the United States which shall be made in
  pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law
  of the land.

10
Ogdens Monopoly

• Under a New York law adopted in 1798, Robert
  Livingston, a prominent politician, obtained a
  monopoly, or exclusive right, for steamboat
  navigation within the state of New York.
• In 1808 Livingston and his partner, engineer
  Robert Fulton, persuaded the New York legislature
  to extend the period of the exclusive franchise
  until 1838. For the next 30 years these two men
  had the sole right to operate steamboatsor
  license others to do sowithin the state of New
  York. Any boats that competed with this monopoly
  would be forfeited by the owner.

11
Gibbons Competes Against His Former Partner

• New York's highest court upheld the monopoly in
  1812.
• In 1815, after the deaths of Livingston and
  Fulton, Aaron Ogden obtained a right under the
  monopoly and began to run a steamboat between New
  Jersey and New York City.
• In 1818 Thomas Gibbons, one of Ogdens former
  partners, began a competing operation between
  Elizabethtown, New Jersey, and New York City.
  Gibbons hired Cornelius Vanderbilt as captain of
  his boat, which operated under a federal license.
• Ogden sued Gibbons for violation of his monopoly
  and in 1820 New York's highest court found in
  Ogdens favor.

12
Journal Write 2

• Can you give an example of a current monopoly?
• Who benefits from a monopoly?
• Who is harmed by monopolies?
• Should the government intervene to destroy
  monopolies?

13
Marshall Strikes Down the Monopoly

• The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the
  New York law granting the monopoly was invalid.
  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Courts
  opinion.
• Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is
  something moreIt describes the commercial
  intercourse between nations. Marshall also
  concluded that commerce included all navigation
  that is in any manner connected with commerce.

14
Intra- versus Inter-State Commerce

• Marshall stated that the power of Congress to
  regulate commerce did not include commerce that
  was completely internal and that did not
  extend to or affect other States. The states
  had the power to regulate such completely
  internal commerce. However, the issue before the
  Court concerned commerce between two states and
  therefore involved federal authority over
  commerce.

15
Federal Laws are Supreme

• Marshall stated that a law enacted by a state
  must yield to any conflicting federal law,
  regardless of the authority of the state to adopt
  the law.
• Because enforcement of Ogdens monopoly
  conflicted with the right of Gibbons to navigate
  freely under his license, the New York law was
  unconstitutional and void.

16
Expansion of Federal Power

• The Gibbons decision was powerfully
  nationalistic, with broad language concerning the
  scope of federal power.
• Virtually all Americans, including those
  skeptical of the tendency of Marshalls decisions
  to uphold federal authority, applauded the
  decision because it struck down unpopular
  monopolies.

17
Later Uses of the Commerce Clause

• In later decisions the Court expanded the
  authority of Congress to regulate commerce,
  holding that it may even regulate any activities
  that affect commerce. Used by FDR.
• In describing this power, the Court noted the
  broad definition of commerce expressed in Gibbons
  v. Ogden.
• More recently, the Court has relied on the
  Commerce Clause to uphold even more expansive
  federal authorityfor example, legislation
  protecting civil rights (Civil Rights Act of
  1964).

18
Abuse of the Commerce Power

• The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is a piece
  of legislation passed by the US Congress. The act
  states "it is illegal to possess a firearm at
  a place that...is a school zone..."
• The Supreme Court held that the Act was an
  unconstitutional exercise of power under the
  Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez (1995),
  a case that stepped back from decades of
  deference to Congressional power to regulate
  interstate commerce.

19
Journal Write 3

• John Marshall attempted to make the United States
  into a single free-trade zone.
• We now have the European Union and the North
  American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
• What are the benefits of eliminating tariffs and
  other barriers to trade?
• Should NAFTA be expanded to all of Latin America
  to become the Free Trade Area of the Americas?

20
Riot police arrive by helicopter to secure the
Gleneagles Hotel perimeter during G8 summit.