In Gibbons v. Ogden, what power was affirmed for the federal government?

In Gibbons v. Ogden, what power was affirmed for the federal government?

• A. Regulating international trade
• B. Regulating state taxes
• C. Regulating interstate commerce
• D. Regulating local businesses

Answer: (C)

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This landmark case established a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling clarified that interstate commerce encompasses not only the transportation of goods and services between states but also the activities that occur in preparation for or as part of that commerce. The decision was pivotal in asserting federal authority over states in matters related to commerce that crossed state lines, thereby preventing states from enacting legislation that would interfere with or impose restrictions on this vital economic activity. This ultimately laid the groundwork for a more unified national market and affirmed the principle that the federal government holds supremacy in regulating interstate trade. Other options do not accurately reflect the scope of powers addressed in the case. Regulating international trade, state taxes, and local businesses involves different contexts and authorities that are not directly pertinent to the core issue evaluated in Gibbons v. Ogden.

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This landmark case established a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling clarified that interstate commerce encompasses not only the transportation of goods and services between states but also the activities that occur in preparation for or as part of that commerce.

The decision was pivotal in asserting federal authority over states in matters related to commerce that crossed state lines, thereby preventing states from enacting legislation that would interfere with or impose restrictions on this vital economic activity. This ultimately laid the groundwork for a more unified national market and affirmed the principle that the federal government holds supremacy in regulating interstate trade.

Other options do not accurately reflect the scope of powers addressed in the case. Regulating international trade, state taxes, and local businesses involves different contexts and authorities that are not directly pertinent to the core issue evaluated in Gibbons v. Ogden.