Reign in Big Business and set rates and standards for all transportation/freight charges and close monopolies in business that cut out the small Entrepeneurs. Competition is a good thing for both business and consumers. John Rockefeller was the original Trust Baron with Superior Oil, owning 90% of America's oil refineries. The railroad barons were giving favored rates to other big business and rail owners and higher rates for the small business men and farmers. These two acts changed how American business worked and helped spur increasing Entrepeneurs and manufacturers.
The Articles of Confederation left no information or authority for Congress to either regulate interstate commerce or foreign trade. It also lacked the ability to tax and raise funds or tariffs, this made the country appear weak to potential lending countries. There was also a mountain of both personal as well as war debts incurred by the government. There were also no provisions for a national bank.
Well that's really a matter of opinion. For the North Sherman and Grant were both good generals- but Lee is probably commonly considered to be the best general of the war.
Both sides thought it would a short, glorious and largely bloodless affair of splendid uniforms and bands, ending in early victory. See Sherman's letters to Southern friends, warning them of what was really to come.
Ogden's attorneys argued:The Court should interpret "commerce" narrowly.New York, as a sovereign state, was entitled to regulate commerce within its borders.New York had the right to grant Ogden an exclusive legal franchise in Hudson Bay and New York Harbor, which were both under the purview of the state.Anyone who wanted to operate a steamboat in New York water had to pay for the privilege.New York laws did not interfere with the federal government's right to regulate commerce.New York and the federal government had concurrent power over commerce.Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
gain more control over business
Federal legislation passed in 1890 prohibiting "monopolies or attempts to monopolize" and "contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade" in interstate and foreign commerce. The major purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act was to prohibit monopolies and sustain competition so as to protect companies from each other and to protect consumers from unfair business practices. The act was supplemented by the clayton antitrust act in 1914. Both acts are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Attorney General's office. (source: answers.com)
No. Congress regulates interstate and foreign commerce.
The Progressives made government regulation of the business sector a part of the platform after the depression of the 1890s. Both President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson started to heavily enforce the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 when they came to power in 1901 and 1913 respectively. This stood in stark contrast to the late nineteenth century practice of laissez-faire, where the government did not interfere with the economy.
While there is a fine line between regulation and control, the Constitution gives congress authority over interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8, the Interstate Commerce Clause. In order to exercise this authority, the government must have a legitimate reason for passing regulations affecting interaction between the states.
congress, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, "this claus, the Commerce Clause, gives Congress the power to regulate both foreign and interstate trade. Much of what Congress does, it does on the basis of its commerce power."
Federal government
imprisonment not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding $10,000,000
to promote competition
Yes, and anything else imaginable. The Supreme Court only recently (relatively speaking) recognized a limit to Congress' power under the Interstate Commerce Clause in the case of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).Essentially, the Court held that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to activity that is both "non-economic" and "wholly intrastate." Congress may, on the other hand, regulate the "channels" of commerce (e.g., highways, rivers, railroads, etc.), "instrumentalities" of commerce (e.g., products/services bought and sold in commerce, and the means by which they travel interstate), and those activities which "substantially effect" interstate commerce. To take the Lopez case, for example, banning the mere possession of a gun within 1000 ft. of a school was neither a regulation of a channel or instrumentality of interstate commerce. The government argued that guns in/near schools had a negative effect on education; if education suffers, students won't learn as much; if American students are stupid, they will not perform as well in future jobs; therefore guns near schools have a "substantial effect" on the national economy, and thus also on interstate commerce.The Supreme Court said, "hell no... you've got to be kidding." (That's not a direct quote, just in case you're wondering.)
Roger Sherman created the Great Compromise! :)
commerce is science as well an art