... the mere grant of such a power to Congress, did not imply a prohibition on the States to exercise the same power; that it is not the mere existence of such a power, but its exercise by Congress, which may be incompatible with the exercise of the same... The Hesperian - Seite 280herausgegeben von - 1839Vollansicht - Über dieses Buch
| United States. Congress - 1829 - 870 Seiten
...except so far as they had been abridged by that " instrument. The grant of a power to Congress did not " imply a prohibition on the States to exercise the same "power. Thus, Congress are authorized to establish "uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy, but the " States... | |
| James Kent - 1832 - 590 Seiten
...except so far as they had been abridged by that instrument. The mere grant of a power by Congress did not imply a prohibition on the states to exercise the same power. Thus, Congress are authorized to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, but the states... | |
| Ohio. Supreme Court - 1832 - 976 Seiten
...Wheat. 122,) one of the principles, recognised, was, that the mere grant of a power to Congress, did not imply a prohibition on the states to exercise the same power; but wherever the terms in which » power is granted to Congress, or the nature of the power required... | |
| John Marshall - 1839 - 762 Seiten
...this shows the sense of the convention to have been that the mere grant of a power to congress did not imply a prohibition on the states to exercise the same power. But it has never been supposed that this concurrent power of legislation extended to every possible... | |
| United States - 1845 - 816 Seiten
...the law of the land Marbury » Midison, 1 Cranch, 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. The mere grant of power to Congress does not imply a prohibition on the States to exercise the same power. Whenever the terms in which such a power is granted to Congress require that it should be exercised... | |
| 1847 - 554 Seiten
...this shows the sense of the convention to have been, that the mere grant of a power to Congress, did not imply a prohibition on the States to exercise the same power. But it has never been supposed, that this concurrent power of legislation extended to every possible... | |
| James Kent - 1851 - 706 Seiten
...except so far as they had been abridged by that instrument. The mere grant of^a power by congress did not imply a prohibition on the states to exercise the same power. Thus, congress are authorized to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, but the states... | |
| Charles Whittlesey - 1852 - 416 Seiten
...well defined by the Supreme Judicial Bench of the Union, in Sturgcs vs. Crowningshicld, 4 Wheaton, 193. " The mere grant of a power by Congress does...exercise their powers upon any given subject, the States can not enter upon the same ground and provide for the same objects." And the well-known general rule... | |
| Charles Whittlesey - 1852 - 410 Seiten
...well defined by the Supreme Judicial Bench of the Union, in Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4 Wheaton, 193. " The mere grant of a power by Congress does...power, in affirmative terms to Congress, does not per te transfer exclusive sovereignty on such subjects." " The doctrine of the court is, that when Congress... | |
| Charles Whittlesey - 1852 - 410 Seiten
...well defined by the Supreme Judicial Bench of the Union, in Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4 Wheaton, 193. " The mere grant of a power by Congress does...same power." And, in Houston vs. Moore, 5 Wheaton, ~L, " The mere grant of a power, in affirmative terms to Congress, does not per se transfer exclusive... | |
| |