In what way is Marshall and ruling in the gibbons case consistent with his other decisions such as McCulloch v. Maryland that related to federal verses state powers?

Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden, like his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, reinforced the supremacy of federal authority over state laws. In Gibbons, he emphasized that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce was expansive and could not be undermined by state legislation. Similarly, in McCulloch, he affirmed the federal government's implied powers and the principle that states could not tax federal institutions. Both cases demonstrated Marshall's commitment to a strong central government, promoting a cohesive national economy and reducing state interference.