1 / 12

Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. Ogden. By: Amy Miller. Basic Case Information. Year: 1824 Chief Justice: John Marshall Decision (from Supreme Court): In favor of Gibbons. Case Summary.

dezso
Télécharger la présentation

Gibbons v. Ogden

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gibbons v. Ogden By: Amy Miller

  2. Basic Case Information • Year: 1824 • Chief Justice: John Marshall • Decision (from Supreme Court): In favor of Gibbons

  3. Case Summary • The government of New York let steamboat companies have control over the waters between New York and New Jersey where the federal government had already stated jurisdiction. • Ogden filed a complaint in an attempt to restrict Gibbons from using these waters. • Article I Section 8 of the Constitution stated that Congress has exclusive power over interstate commerce.

  4. Thomas Gibbons v. Aaron Ogden

  5. Do I Agree? • Yes • There should be no chance of monopoly over waters between states. • One state government should no be able to rule over another.

  6. Questions??

  7. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

  8. Basic Case Information • Year: 2002 • Chief Justice: William Rehnquist • Decision (from Supreme Court): In favor of Zelma • Zelma=State of Ohio • Simmons-Harris=Parents

  9. Case Summary • An Ohio based scholarship program which gave scholarships to students, to attend private schools, (mostly religious schools) in low income families was challenged on the basis that the program violates the Establishment Clause. • The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” • It was decided that the program did not violate this clause and the program was created for a secular purpose not a religious purpose.

  10. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

  11. Do I Agree? • Yes • This program was not meant to be for specifically religious schools just schools in general.

  12. Questions??

More Related