Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
SCOTUS Cases (Gibbons vs. Ogden (Unanimous decision, 6 yes in favor of…
SCOTUS Cases
Gibbons vs. Ogden
Unanimous decision, 6 yes in favor of Gibbons
-
Did the state of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress namely, the regulation of commerce
The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the U.S and foreign nations, and among the several States. It doesn't stop at external boundary of state
-
Important because Interstate commerce was used because goods to be traded were on the steamboats ; show of federalism
-
Marbury vs. Madison
-
-
-
-
-
-
Key people: Adams, Jefferson, Marbury, Madison, Marshall
Dredd Scott vs. Sanford
-
Scott was a slave until moved and resided in Illinois, a state free state. When he moved back to Missouri, he sued in Missouri court for his freedom. Claiming that his residency in a free state would make him a free man.Scott sued in federal courts.
Dredd Scott was a slave because he came from slave descent and could not be a citizen. He was also not a citizen of the U.S, therefore could not be a citizen of the state
Slaves not being "not being citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue
At the time it was important for the continuation of slavery as it made slaves unable to gain freedom in the United States
It contracted federal power because slaves could not be protected by the federal government, thus the national government could not interfere with slavery making the states more power. This rule also undermined the platform of the federal government and their doctrine of popular sovereignty
-
Reynolds vs U.S
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon church Brigham Young, challenged an anti-bigamy statute or religious grounds. He believed that the statue denied their members their first amendment right to practice religion
Questions: Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice
-
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.
Expands federal power because it give government more power over religious practices and lessons the power of the first amendment
to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
McCulloch vs. Maryland
-
Questions: Did Congress have authority to establish a bank?
Did the Maryland Law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
-
-
-