Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Judicial restraint, a procedural or substantive approach to the exercise of judicial review.As a procedural doctrine, the principle of restraint urges judges to refrain from deciding legal issues, and especially constitutional ones, unless the decision is necessary to the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties. After the State of New York denied Gibbons access to the Hudson Bay, he sued Ogden. Congress' power to regulate within its sphere is exclusive. Sources Cited There were actually 7 judges on the bench in 1824, Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and, after stating the case, proceeded as follows: The appellant contends that this decree is erroneous because the laws which purport to give the exclusive privilege it sustains are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Like most abstract theories, definitions vary slightly according to different sources. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape … More recently, a liberal or progressive judicial ideology has been promoted by Ronald Dworkin, Edwin Chemerinsky, and to a limited extent John Hart Ely. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The state of New York agreed in 1798 to grant Robert Fulton and his backer, Robert R. Livingston, a monopoly on Judicial Activism-One man, one vote/Honest and good faith Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. The case went to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Marshall's opinion carried out the clear original intent of the Constitution to have Congress, not the states, regulate interstate commerce. Gibbons sued Ogden on the basis that the State of New York granted a license for the This fell on the side of judicial activism. Gibbons v. Ogden Case Brief Statement of the facts: Both Gibbons (Plaintiff) and Ogden (Defendant) operated steamboats in New York in an effort to regulate coastal trade. Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation—a theory of how judges interpret laws. In this Commerce Clause case, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and held that by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, state laws “must … Judicial Restraint. This is clearly judicial restraint. Judicial Restraint. Judges should be unafraid to review government actions Jun 10, 2013, Vol. United States Supreme Case of Gibbons v. Ogden, all commerce that was between the states was regulated by the states themselves. Start studying Judicial Activism vs. 1 THE SUPREME COURT, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT, AND THE COMMERCE POWER: A CASE STUDY Below is a list of some of the most significant Supreme Court Cases regarding Congress’s use of its Article I, Section 8 power to regulate interstate commerce. In addition, it held the powers designated to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution as supreme to conflicting state law which attempt to … Many of Marshall’s decisions dealing with… Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) Gibbons v. Ogden Case Brief - Rule of Law: Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce does not stop at the external boundary line of a State. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. In a month, almost twenty steamboats were now operating on the waterway and trade opportunities increased immensely. Start studying Supreme Court Cases-Court Activism. Start studying Supreme Court Cases-Court Activism. Presents a conflict between the States and Congress over the authority to regulate commerce. a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow, mainly, their personal views Gibbons disagreed arguing that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the sole power over interstate commerce. However, the case levied against Thomas Gibbons by Aaron Ogden would shape the way interstate commerce would ultimately change. Ogden's lawyer argued that states should have complete power regarding their interstate matters. Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and the Dartmouth College case (1819) established the inviolability of a state’s contracts, and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) affirmed the federal government’s right to regulate interstate commerce and to override state law in doing so.