How did the Gibbons V. Ogdens decision promote nationalism?

Answer 1

This case arose from competing commercial legislative acts between the State of New York and the federal legislation known as the federal Coasting Act. Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston secured from the State of New York legislature a grant of exclusive right to operate steam boats on the State’s waters. From this monopoly Aaron Ogdon secured the exclusive right to certain steam navigation across the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. However, Thomas Gibbons engaged in competition with Ogen claiming the right under a license granted under the federal Coasting Act. This resulted in a court case eventually making its way to the United States Supreme Court (USSC).

The case of Gibbons v. Ogden [1824] was the first time USSC was called upon to give a general interpretation of the nature and scope of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The decision of the court (written by Chief Justice John Marshall) was unanimous and addressed four primary questions. First, what does commerce comprehend? Secondly, to what extent may Congress exercise its commercial regulatory power within the separate States. Thirdly, is congressional power to regulate interstate commerce exclusive, or does a State have concurrent power in this field. Fourthly, should the commerce power of Congress (and here since this was an early case was it inferentially other powers too) be construed broadly for the national welfare or be construed strictly in order to protect the reserved police powers of the States.

These were all major (and then unanswered) Constitutional questions.

In the first question the court rejected the argument of Ogden’s counsel that commerce should be narrowly defined as ‘traffic’ or the mere buying and selling of goods. Marshall stated, “ . . . Commerce undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more; it is intercourse. . . . “ He went on to state, “ . . . The meaning of the word (Commerce) is just as comprehensive when applied to ‘commerce among the several States’ as when applied to foreign commerce where it admittedly comprehends every species of commercial intercourse. . . . “

With the second question the Chief Justice admitted, “ . . .the completely internal commerce of a State was reserved to the State. Interstate commerce, however, cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each State, but comprehends navigation within the limits of every State in the Union. Congress’ power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.”

In the third question the USSC was less clear in its opinion. Here Marshall did not actually hold that federal power over interstate commerce was exclusive. Instead he merely held that the State law in question violated the federal Coasting Act. This left an uncertainty with the question as to whether the States had any actual concurrent power over interstate commerce in the absence of federal regulation. However, Justice William Johnson (who delivered a concurring opinion) did state that Congress’ power to regulate commerce was not only very broad but definitely exclusive.

On the fourth question Chief Marshall was emphatic by rejecting the narrow construction concept on the grounds that it “ . . . would cripple the government and render it unequal to the objects for which it is declared (in the preamble) to be instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly understood, rendered it competent. . . . “

This answer is likely more than you wanted to know but it is a complex area of law and this case set the foundation for case precedent for those (as John Marshall) who believed in a strong central government interpretation of the Constitution as a promotion of National Government over the States.

Let me also suggest that the selected word of Nationalism is possibly not correct for what you are intending.

nationalism

1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism
4. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
5. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
6. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.


National Government
any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation

Federalism
A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.

Rather than nationalism, ‘nationalistic,’ ‘national government,’ ‘federalism’ may all be more close to what you are attempting to define.

Answer 2

When you ask others to help you DO YOUR HOMEWORK, do you ever say "please" or "thank you?"