Answer:
-In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in 1819, the United States Supreme Court pronounced a landmark decision on federalism in the United States. The State of Maryland had attempted to interfere with the operation of a branch of the nation's Second Bank of the United States by charging a tax on all banknotes issued by non-Maryland banks. The Supreme Court declared the law to impose the tax unconstitutional because it conflicted with Congress's implicit legislative powers based on the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the First Article of the United States Constitution. The clause gives Congress the power to pass laws beyond the explicitly stated catalog of jurisdictions, as long as these laws are necessary and proper to implement the explicitly named legislative powers. The jurisprudence on implicit competences has been incorporated as an implied powers doctrine into international law and other jurisdictions.
-In the case Gibbons vs Ogden, it was intended to preserve the supremacy of a license granted to Gibbons to navigate throughout the North American territory.
Thus judge John Marshall considered that the license granted to Gibbons was legal as soon as both the licenses granted to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton were legal too, however, stressed that in maritime matters the only one that could determine laws of this nature was the Congress itself and not the New York legislature.
In such a way, Judge Marshall indicated that there were two types of acts; some that were of the exclusive nature of the Congress and that the states could not legislate in any degree and those that the states could legislate when the Congress had previously legislated in the same matter.
Thus, Judge Marshall mentioned that the law emanating from the Congress would have to be the supreme law in both cases, and in case there was some interference with state laws, federal laws would have supremacy.