Commerce Law Impact on Marijuana Legalization

The Tetralogy of Cases Skewed Towards Marijuana Gibbons V. Ogden, Heart of Atlanta, the Daniel Ball, and Solid Waste V. Army Corps of Engineers are all cases that have one thing common, Commerce; but, how do any of these cases relate to the legalization of marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington? There are a variety of different types of commerce, but the two main types that I have studied are interstate commerce and intrastate commerce. Interstate commerce is essentially the trade between goods across state borders, and intrastate is quite similar to interstate state commerce, but the buying and selling happens within state borders. Although these cases may not have anything to do with the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and

Ogden, Aaron Ogden had a Fulton-Livingston license to operate steamboats under the Fulton-Livingston monopoly. The Fulton-Livingston monopoly controlled steamboats on the waterways of New York State. These steamboats were operated between New York and New Jersey and carried people and goods, and were extremely profitable. Thomas Gibbons’ route was the same as Ogden’s, thus making them competition for each other. Gibbons did not operate under the Fulton-Livingston license, he operated under the Federal Coasting license, that was granted under a 1793 act of congress. The water route between New Jersey and New York is an interstate waterway, thus making the business on the waterway interstate commerce. Ogden was unhappy about having competition, so he went to the Court of Chancery of New York in attempt to get Gibbons off the route. Gibbons lost the case twice in New York, so he appealed the decision of the lower courts to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, because any license granted under the Federal Coasting act of 1793 takes eminence over any similar license granted by a state. This case gives a clear depiction why marijuana has been legalized in states such as Colorado and Washington. Marijuana that is being sold in these states is staying in these states, thus making this intrastate commerce. If the state legalizes marijuana and only allows for it to be sold in their state, then congress cannot play a part

The owner of this motel was reserving his services for white persons only, three-fourths of which were transient interstate travelers. Congress ruled that the movement of persons is commerce which is of concern of more than one state. Under the Commerce Clause the protection of interstate commerce is within regulatory power of congress even if the transportation of persons between states is not commercial. Although some may argue that this case goes against the legalization of marijuana due to tourist that travel to these states. I argue that Colorado and Washington are not advertising to residents of other states to travel to their state for legal use of marijuana. In the Daniel Ball case there was a fine issued for operating on navigable waterways of the United States. This case also would lead someone to believe that recreational use of marijuana should not be legal in states if the marijuana is being transported through navigable waterways of the United States; however, the state of Colorado issues special licenses that allow transportation of marijuana within their own