CASES
BY: Jessica Gryczko
Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
In this case where Gibbons and Ogden received their license to use their steamboats. But the issue is Ogden and Gibbons were given two different places to use their steamboats. So Ogden sued Gibbons for not liking the fact of where both can use their steamboats. While they were at Supreme Court Gibbons won and Ogden lost. Congress even took side with Gibbons so that how he won.
Gibbons
Received license to operate steamboat from New Jersey and New York. Gibbons won the battle against Ogden at the Supreme Court.
Ogden
Also received license to operate steamboat but only on the coast water of New York. Ogden even sue Gibbons for the unfairness.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court took Gibbons side instead of Ogden side. Also at Supreme Court Gibbons won the case. Lastly Congress took side with Gibbons too.
The Location
This is showing how Gibbons get to use his steamboats in two locations while Ogden only get to use his steamboat in one location. Also the locations is what started the problem of Court getting involved.
U.S V. Lopez (1995)
This case shows Alfonso Lopez Jr. who was a high school senior was pleased guilty at Federal Court for bringing a gun to school. While at Federal Court the people working at the Federal Court notice that the "Gun- Free School Zones Act" was not official until 1995. So since the "Gun- Free School Zones Act" was not in play the judges decided ended the convicting of Mr. Lopes Jr. So Alfonso Lopez Jr. won this case.
"Gun-Free School Zones Act"
This the sign saying this school zone is gun free and drug free. Also anybody that comes on to school ground will be convicted at Court.
US
Map of USA to show you the case was Lopez against USA. Another thing is USA lost the case against Lopez Jr.
Guns not Allow
This is showing how guns are not allow near school grounds or used on school grounds. Lastly guns are dangerous to use.
Federal Court
Here where the case was taken to handle things out. Lastly this where the people found out the Act of guns was not official yet.
Hammer V. Dagenhart (1918) editorial
I believe Roland Dagenhart did the right thing by suing the textile mill company. Honestly I'm glad this case was handled by the Supreme Court because it brought freedom for kids to work in company and textile mills. Beside if Roland didn't bring up that the Keating- Owen Act was unconstitutional then textile mill would have won. Also which side would have won if Supreme or Federal Court wasn't involved, probably the textile mill company because they would be able to do what they want all the time still. Another thing is a case like this is serious when it comes to discrimination or child labor against children who want to work in factories or company stores. Why cases like this are important because people can fight for the kids' freedom to do anything they want to do for a job. Also Dagenhart did a really brave thing by suing the textile mill company and point out an act that not important just so he kid can have freedom to work at a company. another thing is if anybody have a serious problem don't be afraid, be brave and stick up for what needs to change in the world. Another thing too is you can't always trust companies, people around you and sometimes friends. Lastly companies may just want better people than little kids working for them or companies just want to not have kids mess up any process of their duties. The end.
The Company
This is a company where the goods are manufactured by kids that are the age of 14 and under. Also this company want to sell them but not allow.
The Congress
Congress banned manufactured goods made by kids under the age of 14 to be purchase by people. Since Congress made that banned Dagenhart sued against Congress.
Federal Law
So Federal law helped Dagenhart at Court and Congress was not in charge of picking what goods can be purchase. So Dagenhart and his kids won the case against Congress who lost the case.
Here is Someone who was involved
This person was involved with the case by deciding who wins in this case. Also he was one of the four judges.