Respuesta :

Both of these cases involved putting limits on state government and both cases ruled in favor of the federal government, showing that, if there was ever a conflict between the federal government and a state government, the federal government automatically won. McCulloch vs. Maryland ruled that state governments could not tax the federal government and Gibbons vs. Ogden ruled that the federal government alone had the power to regulate interstate commerce (trade between states). In both cases, the Supreme Court said that the federal government won.
Tundexi

The common factor between these case is that the supreme court ruled a case between state government and central government and ended up ruling in favor of the federal government

In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to establish a national bank and that the state (Maryland) did not have the power to tax branches of the federal government.

In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme court ruling result to the power of the federal governmetent over interstate commerce getting more strengthened.

In conclusion, the common factor between these case is that the supreme court ruled a case between state government and central government and ended up ruling in favor of the federal government

Read more about this here

brainly.com/question/10001239

Otras preguntas