The Pharaohs Double Crown of Egypt

The Pharaoh's Double Crown of Egypt Ancient Egyptian pharaohs are usually depicted wearing a crown or a head-cloth. The most important of these was the double crown, which symbolizes the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt and was worn by pharaohs starting with the First Dynasty around the year 3000 BCE. Its ancient Egyptian name is the pschent. The double crown was an amalgamation of the white crown (Ancient Egyptian name hedjet) of Upper Egypt and the red crown (Ancient Egyptian name deshret) of Lower Egypt. Another name for it is shmty, meaning the two powerful ones, or sekhemti. The crowns are seen only in artwork and no specimen of one has been preserved and discovered.  In addition to the  pharaohs, the gods Horus and Atum are depicted wearing the double crown. These are gods that are closely allied with the pharaohs. Symbols of the Double Crown The combination of the two crowns into one represented the rule of the pharaoh over his united kingdom. The red deshret  of Lower Egypt is the outer portion of the crown with cutouts around the ears. It has a curled projection in front that represents the proboscis of a honeybee, and a spire in the back  and an extension down the back of the neck. The name deshret  is also applied to the honeybee. The red color represents the fertile land of the Nile delta. It was believed to have been giving by Get to Horus, and the pharaohs were the successors of Horus. The white crown is the interior crown, which was more conical or bowling pin shaped, with cutouts for the ears. It may have been assimilated from the Nubian rulers before being worn by rulers of Upper Egypt. Animal representations were fastened to the front of the crowns, with a cobra in attack position for Lower Egyptian goddess Wadjet and a vulture head for the goddess Nekhbet of Upper Egypt. It isnt known what the crowns were made of, they could have been made of cloth, leather, reeds, or even metal.  Because no crowns have been found in burial tombs, even in those that were undisturbed, some historians speculate they were passed from pharaoh to Pharaoh. History of the Double Crown of Egypt Upper and Lower Egypt were united around the year 3150 BCE with some historians naming Menes as the first pharaoh and crediting him for inventing the pschent. But the double crown was first seen on a Horus of the pharaoh  Djet  of the First Dynasty, around 2980 BCE. The double crown is found in the Pyramid Texts. Nearly every pharaoh from 2700 through 750 BCE was depicted wearing the pschent in hieroglyphs preserved in tombs. The Rosetta Stone and the king list on the Palermo stone are other sources showing the double crown associated with pharaohs. Statues of Senusret II and Amenhotep  III are among many showing the double crown. The Ptolemy rulers wore the double crown when they were in Egypt but when they left the country they wore a diadem instead.

The Supreme Court Case of Gibbons v. Ogden

The Supreme Court Case of Gibbons v. Ogden The case of Gibbons v. Ogden, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824, was a major step in the expansion of the power of the federal government to deal with challenges to U.S. domestic policy. The decision confirmed that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution granted Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, including the commercial use of navigable waterways.   Fast Facts: Gibbons v. Ogden Case Argued: February 5- February 9, 1824Decision Issued:  March 2, 1824Petitioner:  Thomas Gibbons (appellant)Respondent:  Aaron Ogden (appellee)Key Questions: Was it within New York State’s rights to issue laws regarding navigation within its jurisdiction, or does the Commerce Clause give Congress authority over interstate navigation?Unanimous Decision: Justices Marshall, Washington, Todd, Duvall, and Story (Justice Thompson abstained)Ruling:  As interstate navigation fell under interstate commerce, New York could not interfere with it, and the law was therefore invalid. Circumstances of Gibbons v. Ogden In 1808, the state government of New York awarded a private transport company a virtual monopoly to operate its steamboats on the state’s rivers and lakes, including rivers that ran between New York and adjoining states. This state-sanctioned steamboat company granted Aaron Ogden a license to operate steamboats between Elizabethtown Point in New Jersey and New York City. As one of Ogden’s business partners, Thomas Gibbons, operated his steamboats along the same route under a federal coasting license issued to him by an act of Congress. The Gibbons-Ogden partnership ended in dispute when Ogden claimed that Gibbons was undercutting their business by unfairly competing with him. Ogden filed a complaint in the New York Court of Errors seeking to stop Gibbons from operating his boats. Ogden argued that the license granted to him by the New York monopoly was valid and enforceable even though he operated his boats on shared, interstate waters. Gibbons disagreed arguing that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the sole power over interstate commerce. The Court of Errors sided with Ogden. After losing his case in another New York court, Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Constitution grants the federal government the overriding power to regulate how interstate commerce is conducted. Some of the Parties Involved The case of Gibbons v. Ogden was argued and decided by some of the most iconic lawyers and jurists in U.S. history. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley represented Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons. The decision of the Supreme Court was written and delivered by America’s fourth Chief Justice John Marshall. â€Å". . . Rivers and bays, in many cases, form the divisions between States; and thence it was obvious, that if the States should make regulations for the navigation of these waters, and such regulations should be repugnant and hostile, embarrassment would necessarily happen to the general intercourse of the community. Such events had actually occurred, and had created the existing state of things.†Ã‚  - John Marshall - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 The Decision In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress alone had the power to regulate interstate and coastal trade. The decision answered two pivotal questions about the Constitution’s Commerce Clause: First, exactly what constituted â€Å"commerce?† And, what did the term â€Å"among the several states† mean? The Court held that â€Å"commerce† is the actual trade of commodities, including the commercial transportation of commodities using navigation. Also, the word â€Å"among† meant intermingled with† or cases in which one or more states had an active interest in the commerce involved. Siding with Gibbons, the decision read, in part:   If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States. The Significance of Gibbons v. Ogden   Decided 35 years after the ratification of the Constitution, the case of Gibbons v. Ogden represented a significant expansion of the power of the federal government to address issues involving U.S. domestic policy and the rights of the states. The Articles of Confederation had left the national government virtually powerless to enact policies or regulations dealing with the actions of the states. In the Constitution, the framers included the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to address this problem. Though the Commerce Clause gave Congress some power over commerce, it was unclear just how much. The Gibbons decision clarified some of these issues. John Marshall’s Role In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall provided a clear definition of the word â€Å"commerce† and the meaning of the term, â€Å"among the several states† in the Commerce Clause. Today, Marshall’s is regarded as the most influential opinions concerning this key clause.​ ... Few things were better known, than the immediate causes which led to the adoption of the present constitution ... that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law.†- John Marshall- Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 Updated by Robert Longley