I'd say "d" considering all of the other options are very negative.
Answer:
A. Federal law always supercedes state law.
Explanation:
Gibbons v. Ogden was a Supreme Court case which held that the Congress of the United States of America had authority, jurisdiction and power to regulate any interstate commerce with respect to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
In New York city, the state legislature granted a monopoly to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton an exclusive navigation rights or privileges of operating on all New York state waters with boats that are being moved either by steam or fire, for a time frame of thirty (30) years. Aaron Orgedon was the governor.
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that in business disputes, federal law always supercedes state law. It held that the permission granted to the state, New York city was monopolistic and as such was not permitted.
Found this on the internet
....
Terrorism constitutes a real threat to democracy, the rule of law and the enjoyment of human rights. As such it must be countered through prevention and suppression by the member States of the Council of Europe. However, poorly implemented or overly Draconian counter-terrorism measures can be counterproductive. While law enforcement operations aimed at terrorists are necessary and justified, counter-terrorism measures should not go beyond what is necessary to maintain peace and security, nor should they subvert the rule of law and democracy in the cause of trying to save it.
