For Your Data Cooley V. Board Of Wardens Example Brief Summary
February 25, 2019
Edit
Cooley v. Board of Wardens case brief summary
53 U.S. 299 (1852)
Facts
Pennsylvania had enacted a constabulary requiring ships navigating its waterways to employ local pilots. The rationale of the constabulary was to better the security of navigation. Failure to comply amongst the constabulary resulted inward a fine. When Cooley failed to hire a local airplane pilot for 1 of ships in addition to later on refused to pay the fine, the Board of Wardens sued.
Issue
Does the Pennsylvania constabulary amount to an unconstitutional rule of interstate commerce past times a state?
53 U.S. 299 (1852)
Facts
Pennsylvania had enacted a constabulary requiring ships navigating its waterways to employ local pilots. The rationale of the constabulary was to better the security of navigation. Failure to comply amongst the constabulary resulted inward a fine. When Cooley failed to hire a local airplane pilot for 1 of ships in addition to later on refused to pay the fine, the Board of Wardens sued.
Issue
Does the Pennsylvania constabulary amount to an unconstitutional rule of interstate commerce past times a state?
Holding
The constabulary does non amount to an unconstitutional rule of commerce.
Reasoning
Curtis, J. Although the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate com- merce, 1 should non blindly construe the Clause to hateful that the Constitution leaves no regulatory ability to the states. In to a greater extent than or less cases, it is advisable that 1 uniform organisation should hold out established throughout the country. In such cases, the regulatory ability devolves upon Congress. In other cases, however, local rule would hold out to a greater extent than advisable. Since Congress has taken no activity to regulate the item aspects of navigation currently inward question, the regulatory ability should hold out allocated to the state.
McLean, J., dissenting. The Court’s conclusion opens the door to rampant interference amongst interstate commerce past times the states. There is nil to terminate every province along a river from regulating its component subdivision of the river equally it sees fit.
The constabulary does non amount to an unconstitutional rule of commerce.
Reasoning
Curtis, J. Although the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate com- merce, 1 should non blindly construe the Clause to hateful that the Constitution leaves no regulatory ability to the states. In to a greater extent than or less cases, it is advisable that 1 uniform organisation should hold out established throughout the country. In such cases, the regulatory ability devolves upon Congress. In other cases, however, local rule would hold out to a greater extent than advisable. Since Congress has taken no activity to regulate the item aspects of navigation currently inward question, the regulatory ability should hold out allocated to the state.
McLean, J., dissenting. The Court’s conclusion opens the door to rampant interference amongst interstate commerce past times the states. There is nil to terminate every province along a river from regulating its component subdivision of the river equally it sees fit.