Question: The General Survey Act was passed shortly after the Supreme Court decision that discussed what concept?

Context:
General Survey Act
The General Survey Act was a law passed by the United States Congress in April 1824, which authorized the president to have surveys made of routes for transport roads and canals "of national importance, in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of public mail."
 While such infrastructure of national scope had been discussed and shown wanting for years, its passage shortly followed the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Gibbons v. Ogden, which first established federal authority over interstate commerce including navigation by river.
 The president assigned responsibility for the surveys to the Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Supreme Court of Namibia
The Supreme Court of Namibia is the supreme court in all legal matters of the laws of Namibia.
 It is the court of last resort and the highest appellate court in the country.
 It is located in the centre of Namibia's capital city, Windhoek.
 A Supreme Court decision is supreme in that it can only be reversed by an Act of Parliament that contradicts it, or by another ruling of the Supreme Court itself.
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 is an Act of the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) which was passed to plug the hole left by the Supreme Court decision in "CC v. Ireland" which struck down as unconstitutional a seventy-year-old provision on statutory rape.
 The Act provides for a defence of honest mistake where, if a defendant can satisfy the court that he or she honestly believed that the person with whom the sexual activity was committed, was of consenting age at the time (which the Act now sets as seventeen years old for both sexes).
 The lack of such a defence in section 1(1) of the "Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935" caused the Supreme Court to declare that section void.
Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924
The Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 greatly influenced the development of eugenics in the twentieth century.
 The act was based on model legislation written by Harry H. Laughlin and challenged by the Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell.
 The Supreme Court upheld the law; consequentially, proving that it was constitutional and making it model law for sterilization laws in other states.
 Justice Holmes wrote that a patient may be sterilized "on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse."
 Between 1924 and 1979, Virginia sterilized over 7,000 individuals under the act.
 The act was never declared unconstitutional; however, in 2001, the Virginia General Assembly passed a joint resolution apologizing for the misuse of "a respectable, 'scientific' veneer to cover activities of those who held blatantly racist views."
 In 2015, the Assembly agreed to compensate individuals sterilized under the act.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.
 The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time.
 Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
Review of court decision in Indonesia
Review of court decision or abbreviated PK (Indonesian: "Peninjauan Kembali" ) is a legal action that can be taken by the convict (the person subject to the penalty) in a legal case against a court decision final and binding on the judicial system in Indonesia.
 The court ruling has called legally enforceable decision of the District Court is not filed an appeal, the decision of the High Court was not filed an appeal (legal action in the Supreme Court), or the decision of the Supreme Court.
 PK can not be taken to court decisions that have permanent legal force if the decision was a decision that states the defendant (person charged in the proceedings) are free from all charges.
Taint (legal)
Taint is a term used in the legal field with reference to evidence that has been "tainted" or ruined in some manner.
 The most common of such usage is with reference to evidence, testimony, identification by witnesses, or confessions that have been obtained by law enforcement illegally.
 The illegality usually results from a violation of one's constitutional rights, such as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protecting against unreasonable search and seizure.
 For example, the dissent in the Supreme Court decision of "Missouri v. Seibert" stated that "the court must examine whether the taint dissipated through the passing of time ... .""
 Missouri v. Seibert", 542 U.S. 600, 628 (U.S. 2004) (Justice O'Connor Dissent, emphasis added).
 The court in "Wong Sun v. U.S.", discussed "purg[ing] of the primary taint" with reference to allowing evidence because the defendant's statements were voluntary and a lengthy period of time had passed as an intervening act.
 "Wong Sun v. U.S.", 371 U.S. 471, (1963) (quoting J. Maguire, Evidence of Guilt 221 (1959) (emphasis added) (stating: "... by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint."))
.
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving Florida voters during the 2000 presidential election.
 In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a decision it had made.
 Shortly after the Florida Supreme Court provided those clarifications, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the case of "Bush v. Gore".
United States v. Masonite Corp.
United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the "General Electric" case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing.
 The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent "Interstate Circuit" hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.
Beck v. Ohio
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning evidence obtained as part of an unlawful arrest.
 Reversing the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Ohio police arrested defendant without probable cause, so the criminally-punishable evidence found on his person during an incidental search was inadmissible.
 Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated defendant's conviction.

Answer: interstate commerce