Question

Read the following passage from one of the Marshall Court’s decisions. “The framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties is to such acts of the state legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged state powers, interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress or the treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. . . .” The Court could use this argument to support its decision in which case? A. Barron v. Baltimore B. Dartmouth College v. Woodward C. Gibbons v. Ogden D. Marbury v. Madison

Short answer

Gibbons v. Ogden

Step-by-step solution

- Understand the Passage

The passage explains the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws and treaties made pursuant to it. It states that any state law that contradicts federal laws or treaties must yield to them.

- Identify Key Concepts

Key concepts here include the supremacy of the Constitution, the nullification of inconsistent acts, and the primacy of federal laws over state laws.

- Match Key Concepts to Case Examples

Consider the cases listed: Barron v. Baltimore (about the application of the Bill of Rights to states), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (about the Contract Clause), Gibbons v. Ogden (about interstate commerce and federal supremacy), and Marbury v. Madison (about judicial review).

- Analyze Each Case

Barron v. Baltimore dealt with state powers and the Bill of Rights, which doesn't directly relate to the passage. Dartmouth College v. Woodward involved state interference in contracts but not in a way that directly involves the supremacy of federal law. Gibbons v. Ogden concerned the supremacy of federal regulation over state law in interstate commerce, which fits the passage. Marbury v. Madison involved the establishment of judicial review, which doesn't directly relate to federal versus state laws.

- Determine the Best Match

Gibbons v. Ogden is the best match because the decision focused on the supremacy of federal commerce laws over conflicting state laws, directly reflecting the principles outlined in the passage.

Key concepts

supremacy of the Constitution

The idea of the supremacy of the Constitution is a foundational principle in American law. The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the Constitution would be the highest law of the land. Any rule, law, or act that contradicts the Constitution is invalid. This ensures a unified legal framework across the entire country.
For example, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must prevail. This is essential to maintaining a cohesive legal system. The Constitution establishes this hierarchy to prevent individual states from undermining federal authority.

• The Constitution is the ultimate legal authority.
• Any conflicting laws or actions are deemed invalid.
• This principle creates a unified legal system.

federal vs state law

The distinction between federal and state law is crucial in understanding the American legal system. Federal laws are created by the national government and apply to the entire country. State laws are made by state governments and apply only within that state.
Conflicts can arise when a state law contradicts a federal law. According to the supremacy clause in the Constitution, federal law takes precedence in such cases. This means state laws must yield to federal laws if there is a conflict. This helps maintain a balance of power and ensures consistency across different states.

• Federal laws apply nationwide.
• State laws apply within individual states.
• Federal law overrides state law in case of conflict.

Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) is a landmark case decided by the Marshall Court. It dealt with the issue of interstate commerce and the supremacy of federal law over state law. The case arose when New York state law granted Robert Fulton and Robert R. Livingston exclusive rights to operate steamboats on the Hudson River. When Thomas Gibbons, who had a federal license, attempted to operate steamboats in the same waters, a conflict arose.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, stating that the federal government had the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. This ruling reinforced the principle that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws. It also firmly established the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.

• Gibbons v. Ogden centered on interstate commerce.
• The case reinforced the supremacy of federal law.
• It confirmed federal authority over interstate commerce regulation.

constitutional law

Constitutional law refers to the body of law that interprets and applies the Constitution. It encompasses various key principles, including the protection of individual rights, the separation of powers, and the system of checks and balances.
One of the main functions of constitutional law is to ensure that all laws and actions comply with the Constitution. This involves interpreting the meaning of constitutional provisions and applying them to specific cases. Courts, especially the Supreme Court, play a crucial role in developing constitutional law through their decisions.

• Constitutional law interprets and applies the Constitution.
• It includes principles like the protection of individual rights.
• Court decisions help shape and develop constitutional law.

judicial review

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive actions. This principle was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). It allows the judiciary to ensure that no law or action violates the Constitution.
The power of judicial review acts as a check on the other branches of government. It helps maintain the balance of power and protects individual rights by ensuring that all laws comply with constitutional standards. Through judicial review, courts can nullify laws and actions that are found to be unconstitutional.

• Judicial review examines the constitutionality of laws and actions.
• It was established in Marbury v. Madison.
• It serves as a check on legislative and executive actions.