Final answer:
Aaron Ogden believed that others should respect the exclusive rights granted to him by the state of New York to operate ferry services, but the Supreme Court's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden established the supremacy of federal regulations under the commerce clause.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aaron Ogden, who had a state license in New York, believed that his exclusive right to operate steamboat ferries between New York and New Jersey should be upheld by other operators. Ogden's view was that Thomas Gibbons, who also operated ferries on the same route but under a federal coasting license, should not be allowed to challenge Ogden's state-granted monopoly. The supremacy of federal licenses over state-granted exclusive rights was at the core of Ogden's belief, tied to state sovereignty and the powers granted by individual states before the landmark Supreme Court decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).
The case had significant implications for the regulation of interstate commerce, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. This decision strengthened the power of the national government, stating that the federal Licensing Act of 1793 was a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the commerce clause. According to Chief Justice Marshall, "the acts of New York must yield to the law of Congress," thereby affirming the power of the federal government to regulate commerce between states over individual state laws.