Hamilton and Marshall an injustice. While they both stood for a strong
National Government, neither of them contemplated any encroachment by
that government on the principle of local self-government in local
matters or the police power of the states.

Marshall in one of his most powerful and far-reaching pronouncements in
support of the national supremacy[1] speaks of

that immense mass of legislation, which embraces everything
within the territory of a state not surrendered to the General
Government;... inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws
of every description ... are component parts of this mass.

[Footnote 1: _Gibbons v. Ogden_, 9 Wheat., 1, 203, 208.]

Later in the same opinion he refers to

the acknowledged power of a state to regulate its police, its
domestic trade, and to govern its own citizens.

... The power of regulating their own purely internal affairs
whether of trading or police.

Hamilton devotes an entire number of the _Federalist_[1] to combatting
the idea that the rights of the states are in danger of being invaded by
the General Government. In another place[2] he returns to the idea

that there is greater probability of encroachments by the
members upon the federal head, than by the federal head upon
the members