Gibbons v. Ogden

Equal Justice Under Law
Gibbons v. Ogden (4th in a 4 part series).
Presents a conflict between the States and Congress over the authority to regulate commerce. In this case, which linked States' authority to license steamboats in federal waters with a seemingly unrelated issue, slavery, Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the Constitution to give the Federal Government the duty to determine the rules of commerce and established how to lay the foundation for an American common market nearly a century before Europe enjoyed it.
Purchase of the tape of this video was made possible through a contribution by Joseph Kulhavy.

[@attackfive8659]

This is an excellent series. We need Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson re-enactments as well.

[@yevgeniyzharinov7473]

Two of the worst decisions ever written.

[@ianattle4747]

​@@yevgeniyzharinov7473yes by far the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. But I am so thankful Brown v. Board was established.

[@EricLee-k6e]

Save all microscopic babies, embryothers, phitusisters, and grand-adults. Love God with all your heart and soul! Rub tallow on yourself not! check your soaps for sodium tallowate and discard if present! God does not consider us rubbing dead bovine fat on ourselves a wash!

[@니모-b6w]

Robinson Edward Moore Joseph Taylor Brenda

[@aprylforrest]

I died in laughter when he said, "I don't give a fig about the Constitution."

[@Wyrmwould]

I think it came down to this: The primary purpose of the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union. So the question was: Would a restrictive or expansive view of the commerce clause better serve that purpose? Marshall decided that an expansive view would better serve the purpose. But expansive does not mean without limit.

[@J.B24]

This is well made. The writing and the acting is great.

[@sheldonbodryn1003]

Who would have thought we would be revisiting this problem in 2022? Another Civil War?

[@darvishdivona777]

Thank You for this video!

[@godbacchus]

He is rockin' that eye patch!

[@camp1315]

2020 doesn't give a fig about anything! NAU here.

[@matthewgabbard6415]

The fact that slaveholders feared a slave rebellion and reprisals proves they knew all along that the practice was barbaric. Also the fact that they treated every decision that favored the Federal Government like emancipation was coming soon is another indication. The guilty man fears everything. Does this sound like a current issue to anyone else?

[@respectamerica2382]

ABORTION IS BARBARIC!

[@razorjoe4729]

Define both the the United States of America and UNITED STATES

[@razorjoe4729]

Sadly, we were lied to about everything

[@jaimesandoval1988]

One could have asked the Framers of the Constitution whom were still alive what they meant when they wrote it.

[@MadanaBhatKhandige]

Jaime Sandoval they authorized the Supreme Court to interpret the text.

[@jaimesandoval1988]

I agree to an extent.

[@MrYahya0101]

can someone please explain this to me: I thought John Randolph was to some degree against slavery, how is it that he is defending slavery here by supporting New York's right to commerce, which meant right to the slave trade and threatening a rebellion.

[@miamitab]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

[@undrgrndking1]

Mr. Devries rocks!!!! this is kei btw for all you Government AP peeps

[@shadowbabe112984]

taxes and tolls at every state line!! HA

[@alekxiousdiaz923]

whats popping Houston! hehe

[@socalgurlilybabe]

yeahhhh mannnnn i like me some gibbon :)

[@Steph_sight]

May someone please explain what he meant by congress has not been given the power to legislate on a turtle navigation

[@studynerd]

He meant stop eating the turtles and having oral intercourse thereafter, this ineffect carries into execution all the foregoing powers of necrobeastiality.