In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court held that (Points : 1)

states’ rights to regulate may not trample on powers specifically reserved for Congress.
states’ rights supersede national authority.
the national government does not have interstate commerce authority.
the 10th Amendment trumps the Interstate Commerce Clause.

What do you think?

You know look these up at www.google.com, right?

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court held that states' rights to regulate may not trample on powers specifically reserved for Congress. To understand this, we need to delve into the case and the legal principles involved.

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark case in 1824 that centered around the interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The case involved a dispute over the exclusive right to operate a ferry service between New York and New Jersey. Aaron Ogden had been granted a monopoly by the state of New York, but Thomas Gibbons operated a competing ferry service under a license granted by the federal government. Ogden sued Gibbons, arguing that his federal license was invalid because the state had the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in favor of Gibbons. The Court held that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and this power is exclusive. It further concluded that New York's grant of a monopoly to Ogden interfered with this federal power. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of uniformity in regulating interstate commerce and declared that state laws conflicting with federal laws in this area are void.

Therefore, the correct answer to the question is: states' rights to regulate may not trample on powers specifically reserved for Congress. Gibbons v. Ogden established the principle that the federal government has authority over interstate commerce and that state regulations cannot supersede or undermine this power.