Thread: -The Docket-

Journey Through History The Round of The Second..wait, what? United States history is full of wonderfully odd little court decisions. Ranging from the ludicrous Marbury v. Madison to the rather racist decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford . But, there are even more remote decisions, which drip with irony, and get little attention today. Since I already have the time-machine warmed up, and will serve as your Willy Wonkathe Gene Wilder version, not the Johnny Depp version that looks like lolishotapedophilia...I could live without the mental scarson this brave adventure of living Supreme Court precedence! Step right up, claim your seat, and take a swig of the snake-oil I picked up at the foot of John Marshalls broom closet courthouse! We first travel five years into the future from our last stop at 1803 Washington D.C. We arrive in the State of New York, in a cloud of lord knows what. The Legislature just granted Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton exclusive navigation privileges of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that State! This included boats moved by magic! Er, I mean fire or stream, and the deal was to last for a term of twenty years. The Legislature subsequently decided to also petition other states and territorial legislatures for similar state-sanctioned monopolies...as it was the trendy thing to do! They hoped to develop a national network of steamboat lines, but the rest of the territories snubbed their noses at the New York pricks...all except one..the Orleans Territorywhat we know as Louisiana, today. Those squirely yet adventurous Cajuns accepted the petition, awarding both Roberts an exclusive navigation privilege and monopoly on the lower Mississippi. Aware of potential new steamboat navigation, competitors challenged Livingston and Fulton Do not pass go, do not collect two-hundred dollars! by arguing that the commerce power of the Federal government was exclusive and superseded state laws. As usual, legal challenges ensued, and in response...the monopoly attempted to undercut its rivals by selling them franchises, or buying up the competitions boats. Its like Microsoft...only with boats and steam.Former New Jersey Governor, and alleged communisteven though commies didnt exist yet Aaron Ogden had tried to to defy the monopoly. However, like most politicians, turned coat and ultimately purchased a license from the Livingston and Fulton assignees in 1815. He thereby entered business with Thomas Gibbons from Georgia. Ah, blissful partnership...which collapsed three years later, demonstrating that the two probably hated each other. Gibbons, oh greedy Gibbons, operated another steamboat on Ogdens route between Elizabethtown and NYC. This boat, unlike the ones run by your friendly Monopoly guys, had been licensed through the U.S. Congress under a 1793 law which regulated the coasting trade. Of course, the partners ended up in the New York Court of Errors, which granted a permanent injunction against Gibbons in 1820. In the interim, Gibbons also took on Cornelius Vanderbiltthis really is starting to look like the board game!as his ferry captain, and later, his business manager. Somewhat annoyed by this, Aaron Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New Yorksince we still adored the English titles for our courts at the timeand asked the court to restrain Thomas Gibbons from operating on these waters harming his little act in the Monopoly. His lawyer, a typical scumbag, contended that states often passed laws on issues regarding interstate matters and that states should have fully concurrent power with Congress on matters concerning interstate commerce...Conveniently ignoring Article I 8, Clause 3s Commerce Clause...and that whole Supremacy thingy found in Article VI. Not to be outdone, Gibbons lawyer, Daniel Webster, argued that Congress possessed the exclusive national power over interstate commerce according to Article I 8 of the Constitution...and arguing otherwise would result in idiocy, confusing and contradicting local regulatory policies. The Court of Chancery, and the Court of Errors found in favor of Ogden, issuing an injunction to restrict Gibbons from operating his boats...in compliance with New Yorks prior granting of a Monopoly. Now, fair traveler...its, how shall we put it? ON! The battle of the monopolies! In one corner you have the United States Federal government, itching for a fight to maintain its monopoly. In the other corner you have New York, filled with its Monopolistic greed and wizardsall that black magic known as steam engines and whatnotready to battle it out in the courts, spilling blood over an issue that would be outlawed by the turn of the century! Gibbons did what most jackasses who werent pleased with their Court decision do...whined...er, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing as he did in New York that the monopoly conflicted with Federal law! After several delays justices had to get their wigs powdered and all, the court began discussing the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I must warn you, dear sojourner through time, in 1824, the Commerce Clause had just become an issue of wider interest. Congress sat in their back rooms debating a bill to provide a Federal survey of roads and canals, which like all Federal projects should operate smoothly and efficiently!yeah, right! Its also interesting to note that particularly Southerners, had grown more sensitive to what the resolution of these issues would mean to them, as the sectional disputes which would lead to the Civil War were already heating up like a tail-gating party before a heated college rivalry game. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. Indeed the only argued source of Congresss power to promulgate the law at issue was the Commerce Clause. Oh how this court case could have gone so differently...if decided in 1992...instead of 1824! The Court faced the legal issue of whether the law regulated commerce that was among the several states. With respect to commerce, the Court held that commerce is more than mere trafficthat it is the trade of commoditiesit is also intercourse no, not the exciting kind. This broader definition includes navigation. Moreover, the Court interpreted among as intermingled with. Indeed, the court went on to state If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its Constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States. Boy thats not littered with a logic flaw at all. This beautiful little example of a non-sequitur argument wound up being the lynch pin of the entire proceeding! The part of the ruling which stated that any license granted under the federal Coasting act of 1793 takes precedence over any similar license granted by a state is also in the spirit of the Supremacy Clause, although the Court did not specifically cite this clause. Nah, they felt more contended on an argument of If one congress has a power like this, and another congress under a similar circumstance, but slightly altered, has the same power...then they must be the same! Thank God we have the Supreme Court to make such wise and informed decisions for us. The ultimate lesson here is, kids, if you want to establish a monopoly...establish it with the support of the Federal Government! Im sure Vanderbilt would eventually wish that the court ruled in his favor like this a littler later down the road, but, for some strange reason they upheld the Sherman Antitrust Act some sixty-six years later. Alas, monopolies were safe...for the time being, at least.