The Regulatory State and the Mixed Economy in the Golden Age of 19th Century American Legal History - Research Paper Example

The Regulatory and the Mixed Economy in the Golden Age of 19th Century American Legal History In relation to the American legal history much had to be made in order to restructure the legal system to suit people. In the past, we have had of cases that were ruled badly, but later of appeals that reversed the judgments. Controversy in the legal history in terms of interstate commerce was mostly brought by the commerce clause of the constitution of the United States. State laws were commonly formed with the aim of controlling trade within its jurisdicted area, but when issues arose that involved interstate commerce came in place, much argument ensued on why the Commerce clause came to influence some major decisions. This paper is going to talk about the American legal history in terms of regulating commerce while referring to landmark decisions that reshaped it (Hale 56). In 1824, the United States Supreme Court came up with a decision that states could interfere with any power of the Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce. This was a legislative enactment put forward to hinder states from interfering with the government policies affecting all states. At around the same time, the state of New York had decided to authorize steamboat operation in its water run by them. This was an act of monopoly and was upheld by the state chancery court. It is then that the Supreme Court ruled out that competing steamboat operators had to be protected by the terms put forward by possessing federal license requiring them to engage in that trade along the coast region. That decision was a major lead by the government in controlling state commerce and removing monopoly control by individual states (Catterall & Henry 12). Maryland in 1819 enacted a statute that imposed tax on all existing banks that operated in Maryland and not chartered by the state. The statute stated that all such existing banks were prohibited from issuing notes upon stamped paper which was issued by the state. Also, the statute set forth a given fee that was supposed to be paid for the paper plus it established penalties for violating it. Maryland came with these policies in order to govern commerce within its own state (Richard 23). The Second Bank of the United States became established in 1816 following an act of congress (Catterall & Henry 15). McCulloch, a cashier at the Bank of the United States in Baltimore branch decided one time to issue bank notes which did not comply to Maryland law. Hence, Maryland sued McCulloch for not paying taxes due according to Maryland statute and McCulloch contested for the constitutionality of that given act (Richard 23). From the case, it was found out that the Congress had the power under the formed constitution to incorporate a given bank pursuant according to Article 1 section 8. In addition, it was found out from the ruling that the State of Maryland did not have the necessary power to tax a given institution that was created by the Congress according to the formed constitution. The decision by the Supreme Court in favor of McCulloch after he appealed to them proved that the Commerce clause was powerful in making such decision (Hale 86). In as much as Maryland had some rights in imposing laws in its own state, it proved that the Congress also had some powers in influencing some major decisions in the Court system. Hence, the government in place though usually limited in its power, but got supreme authority when it comes to issues of implementing laws that had been made under the constitution. There is basically nothing in the constitution that excludes implied or incidental powers. The government at the end usually thrives to remain legitimate in the way it handles issues that are within the constitution scope. Therefore, the power of establishing a given corporation is not usually a distinct sovereign power of a given government, but indicates that the means for carrying into effects some other powers that are sovereign. The government is obliged to exercise its mandate whenever appropriate or when granted powers to do so in accordance to the formed constitution (Hale 47). The Bank of the United States got right to establish its many branches within any state. However, the given State which the bank’s branch has been established got no powers whatsoever to tax it or impede it or control it in any manner in contrast to what the constitution does not state. This principle simply does not extend to include property taxes imposed on the property of that given bank nor to taxes imposed on the proprietary interest that citizens of that given state hold in that institution (Catterall & Henry 24) In accordance to article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the constitution of United States, the Congress is given power to regulate commerce among its states, with foreign nations plus with the India tribes. This is the reason why that clause is often referred to as “Commerce Clause.” The commerce clause is basically a law under the constitution of the United states that more so governed commerce among member states. It was a law that restricted policies that could hinder business among member states plus foreign countries (Hale 4). Many people in the past have misinterpreted this commerce clause because of the ratification of the constitution. Often, the Libertarian and conservative legal experts try to interpret the clause from its original point of view. They usually argue about its power to regulate as implying regular. From their interpretation, one can realize that the commerce clause was put in place by the constitution so as to give the federal government powers to prevent a given state from forming barriers to commerce against each other (Hale 5). In Accordance to The Transformation of American law book written by Morton, the book describes how American law changed since 1780. He majorly attributed the transition periods to have been periods controlled by economic and social revolution. Horwitz in the book describes a critical time in law around 1780s that greatly influenced American law. In addition, the book tends to mount a brilliant attack on the way private law of negligence, property, contract, commerce and competition transformed under the state courts. It more so deals with a progressive approach taken by law makers in revolutionalizing law by coming up with new laws and rules (Horwitz 20). From Horwitz’s work, one would realize that the eighteenth century common law was based on precedent. In addition, the given law was biased and was more in favor of status quo and was also indifferent to the impact it had in society. The judiciary at that time was also resistant to change and its role was to preserve order in society which itself valued order above all things. In his writing, the author basically was trying to demonstrate the changes that occurred in the American law so as to be able to be part of social change. During the transformation, courts shed their passivity and assumed a quasi legislative role. Judges in the nineteenth century came to understand that different sets of legal rules had different effects on growth in economy. They also believed that economic depended both on wealth distribution and level in which people had invested (Horwitz 25). In accordance to Horwitz’s book, property law is discussed in detail. The author adds that the property-rights emphasized in the new institutional economic history depict the importance of it. Horwitz’s argument begins with the transformation of property law which ran parallel to the transformation of the concept of property, from estates which were tranquilly enjoyed to resources that could be productively employed. Basically, the rubric of the given property law entailed riparian, other water-power rights, the law of waste and the tenant rights. Also in that rubric, were nuisance, eminent domain, damages and negligence falling under it (Horwitz 28). In Livingston v. Van Ingen case of 1812, the commerce Clause issue is also touched. Concerning the history of the case, Livingston-Fulton had a steamboat monopoly company that operated in New York waters. This company was protected in accordance to the New York law at that time since anyone who wished to be there competitor had to still obtain a license from the New York state. In the case, the New York state was regulating its own state commerce and that is why Livingston Boat Company was given monopoly privileges and limited other boat companies from bringing competition. In accordance to a jurist, Kent, a decision in the case was made in favor of the monopoly by arguing that the state had its own rights to regulate its state commerce. He argued that the Congress should not have to interfere with state policies when it came to commerce as it violated there right by interfering. In 1819, the same Kent influenced the decision made in the case Gibbons v. Ogden by ruling that the commerce clause of the United States was much superior in term of governing interstate commerce compared to state rules (Johnson 73). In 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden case, a landmark decision was made giving the Supreme Court in the United States power to regulate commerce among states. This power was granted to it by the Congress through the Commerce Clause from the United States Constitution. In the case, great lawyers argued for Ogden and Gibbons leading to that landmark decision (Johnson 83). Regarding the background information of the people who put the case forward, Gibbons used to operate a steamboat service that covered New York City, New Jersey and Elizabethtown. He had a license by the United States Congress which regulated costal trading. On the other hand, Ogden was a competitor in that field for Gibbons. Ogden had been given a license by Livingston whom the State of New York had granted exclusive navigation privileges (Herbert 45). It is Ogden who filled case in the New York Court of Chancery to have his competitor Gibbons restrained from operating in those same waters. Ogden lawyer was very confident that the states had passed laws regarding interstate matters and the state worked concurrent with the Congress in matters dealing with interstate commerce. Gibbon’s lawyer on the other hand, argued in Court that the congress had full powers to control interstate commerce in reference to Article 1, section 8 of the existing constitution. He argues that the states were under the Congress and followed rules put in place to govern commerce among states. Hence, in accordance to the New York court of Chancery and the New York Court of Errors, Ogden was favored and Gibbons was restricted from operating his business. Later on, Gibbons appealed his case in the Supreme Court and the decision was reversed. Gibbons got his license back and continued operating his business. Gibbons won the case since the source of the Congress power was in the Commerce Clause that controlled interstate trade (Herbert 53). Throughout the history of American law, we have had several changes taking place. In the 17th century. Judges and lawyers used the law to enrich themselves. Just as in accordance to Livingston boat case, where it used to be the only boat company operating in the New York waters at that time. Such judges and lawyers coined the state law into suiting their own need and favoring the upper class in the society. It is shown clearly from the verdict given in the case Livingstone v. Van Ingen that the rich were given more attention than the oppressed. Van Ingen wanted to break the monopoly employed by Livingstone in the New York waters and hence sued it (Magill 34). The court of New York state at that time ruled a verdict in support of state law being superior in relation to Congress law. The jurist at that time, Kent argued that the state had its own rights of conducting businesses within its borders and the congress violated their rights by trying to regulate them. The judge argued that the state is a entity on its own and the Congress should not interfere with however they conducted their businesses. In occurrence of many decision making cases that reshaped American law with time, like the Gibbon v. Ogden case, which the judge of the Supreme court rule out that the commerce clause had powers in influencing trade among member states. In these cases, through the state judiciary system in New York, Ogden won the case. But in accordance to the Congress law regarding Commerce clause, the case was appealed and Gibbon’s was given an upper hand to operate (Herbert 56). In a capitalist nation, the population got two types of people. The capitalist class and the working class. The system operated in the notion that the working class sold their labour to the capitalist class for a fee. In the 17th and 18th century, during the introduction of industrialization, the capitalist notion was on going at that time. Laborers came from different regions in the world to work in industries and in return, got money to do other stuffs they had intended to do. Hence at that time, lawyers and judges tried to manipulate state laws in favor of capitalists when critical cases concerning the two sides came in place (Magill 12). Around the same time when industrialization came to place in many American states, some states thought they were more powerful than others and came up with policies that favored. States started coming up with laws that favored themselves and hindered other businesses from operating in their own state. An excellent of this is the Livingstone v. Ogden case. In this case, Livingstone Boat Company got much protection of the New York law at that time by being in monopoly. Such laws were created by the state in favors of certain capitalist class that brought money to the state. In addition, such policies impaired commerce among other states. The congress at that time had no say in such a case (Magill 90). Later on, as judges and lawyers views regarding the law changed, some of them had difficulties ruling cases that involved the constitution of the United State. Some states remained in dilemma whether to use the constitution of the United States or the laws implemented by a given state in making judgments concerning cases. Some judges and lawyers made decisions based on state policies while those of the Supreme Court, followed the commerce clause in making its decisions. In some times, some cases won by following the state policies while others won through appealing via the Supreme Court (Magill 56). In terms of capitalism, mercantilism refers to a nationalist early form of capitalism that entailed national business interests being tied to state interests. It also involved the utilization of advance national business and the state apparatus to improve interests abroad. Mercantilism held the notion that wealth of a given nation could be increased through good balance of trade among other nations (Magill 106). In conclusion, American law has passed through hard times in the course of refining it for the better. Managing of commerce between states during the start and times of industrial revolution was quite a controversial affair and different verdicts were given by different courts at different periods (Magill 89). . Works Cited Catterall, Ralph Charles Henry. The Second Bank of the United States. New York : General Books, 2010. Print. (Catterall & Henry 34) Cooke, Frederick Hale. The commerce clause of the federal Constitution. New York: Baker, Voorhis & company, 2007. Print. (Hale 56) Ellis, Richard E. Aggressive nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the foundation of federal authority in the young republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. ( Richard 23) Frank Northen Magill, John L. Loos. Great Events from History: 15,000 B.C.-1819. New York: Salem Press, 2006. Print. (Magill 78) Horwitz, Morton J. The transformation of American law, 1780-1860. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977. Print. (Horwitz 25) Johnson, Herbert Alan. Gibbons v. Ogden: John Marshall, steamboats, and the commerce clause. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2010. Print. (Herbert 56) Herbert, Johson. Gibbons v. Ogden: John Marshall, steamboats, and the commerce clause. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2010. Print. (Johnson 83) Minda, Gary. Postmodern legal movements: law and jurisprudence at century's end. New York: NYU Press, 2000. Print. (Minda 45) Read More