Congress' Power: Interpreting The Constitution

The interpretation of the Constitution is a complex and highly debated topic, with various schools of thought influencing how it is interpreted and by whom. While judges are tasked with interpreting the Constitution impartially, members of Congress also play a crucial role in interpreting its meaning and scope. This is particularly evident when Congress decides what powers are granted to them and how expansive those powers are. This interpretation is guided by the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, as well as implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause. The question of whether Congress should have the power to interpret the Constitution is deeply rooted in the principles of formalism, originalism, and the separation of powers.

Explore related products

Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference)

$35 $14.95

Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review

$25.58 $37.99

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions

$17 $31.49

American Constitutional Interpretation (University Casebook Series)

$285

Constitutional Ambiguity and the Interpretation of Presidential Power (American Jewish Society (Dis))

$35.95 $35.95

Enumerated and implied powers

The Constitution grants Congress enumerated and implied powers to make laws for governing the country. Enumerated powers are those that are explicitly listed in the Constitution, while implied powers are those that are derived from the enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, outlines the enumerated powers of Congress, including the right to lay and collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, coin money, and establish a court system. The Framers of the Constitution understood the need to provide flexibility, allowing for implied powers as well. This flexibility is provided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, which states that Congress has the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States."

For example, Congress has the enumerated power to "raise and support Armies." This implies the power to allocate money to test a missile defense system, even though this is not specifically listed in the Constitution. Similarly, the power to raise an army and navy implies the power to create an air force, even though the Framers did not envision aerial warfare.

Another example is the creation of the Second Bank of the United States by Congress. While the enumerated powers do not specifically include the power to create a central bank, the Court held that Congress had the implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause to implement its express powers to tax and spend.

The implied powers of Congress allow for flexibility and adaptability in governing, ensuring that Congress can effectively carry out its enumerated powers and act in the best interests of the country.

Originalism and formalism

Originalism is a legal theory in the United States that interprets the constitution based on its original meaning at the time of its adoption. It is based on the idea of interpreting the original intent of those who drafted, proposed, and ratified the Constitution to determine its interpretation. Originalists argue that this approach limits judicial discretion and prevents judges from imposing their own values or political views on the text. They also believe that any changes to the Constitution should be made through formal amendments or democratic modifications of laws. Originalism gained mainstream acceptance by 2020 and has influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia.

Originalism consists of various theories of interpretation, including original intent and original public understanding. The former seeks to understand the specific intentions of the Founding Fathers, while the latter focuses on how the public that ratified the Constitution would have generally understood it. The debate around originalism has been ongoing, with critics arguing that a collective intent among the Founding Fathers is difficult to discern and may not be applicable in modern times due to societal changes.

Formalism, on the other hand, focuses on the structural divisions within the Constitution and emphasizes close adherence to these rules to preserve liberty. It involves examining the relationships between different branches of government as outlined in the Constitution. Formalism rejects the idea of looking at post-ratification historical practices and instead prioritizes a strict interpretation of the Constitution's structural aspects.

Both originalism and formalism are methodologies of constitutional interpretation. While originalism focuses on the original intent and understanding of those who created and ratified the Constitution, formalism emphasizes the structural divisions and relationships within the document. The compatibility and influence of these two approaches on each other have been a subject of discussion, with some scholars arguing for one methodology taking precedence over the other.

Necessary and Proper Clause

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It states that Congress has the legislative power to:

> "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Clause has been interpreted as granting Congress implied powers in addition to its enumerated powers. This interpretation was solidified in the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, where the Court ruled that Congress had the implied power to establish a bank to aid in its enumerated power to tax and spend. This case reaffirmed Alexander Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was controversial during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, with Anti-Federalists arguing that it would grant the federal government boundless power. Federalists, including Hamilton and James Madison, countered that it would only permit the execution of powers granted by the Constitution and was necessary to give the Constitution effect.

The interpretation of the Clause has continued to be a point of contention between political parties, with the first practical example of this contention arising in 1791 when Hamilton used the Clause to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States. Madison, concerned about potential exploitation by monied aristocrats, argued that Congress lacked the authority to charter a bank. Hamilton countered that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and borrowing funds.

Explore related products

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition (The University Center for Human Values Series)

$18.49 $19.95

The Silent Prologue: How Judicial Philosophies Shape Our Constitutional Rights

$24.99

The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

$41.97 $53

Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union (Oxford Studies in European Law)

$114.99

China's Party Congress: Power, Legitimacy, and Institutional Manipulation

$30.24 $50

Congress's Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers

$32.95 $45

Congress' duty to interpret

Interpreting the Constitution is a duty shared by Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate take an oath to support and defend the Constitution when they enter office. They are obligated to follow the Constitution when making laws. When crafting and considering a bill, they must decide whether the law is consistent with the Constitution.

Congress has a duty to interpret the Constitution, just as the President does when deciding whether to sign a bill into law. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution when deciding whether a law is constitutional.

The Framers of the Constitution tried to avoid the mistakes of the Articles of Confederation, which had strictly limited the powers of the national government. The Framers gave Congress broad powers, including the right to lay and collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, coin money, and establish a court system.

Congress must decide what the Constitution means and how expansive that power is. For example, Congress must decide whether it has the power to regulate manufacturing or commerce that takes place entirely within a state. Congress and the President must consider these questions when making and enforcing laws.

There are different approaches to interpreting the Constitution. Some scholars argue for an originalist approach, which focuses on the original intent of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. Others argue for a formalist approach, which adheres closely to the structural divisions in the Constitution to preserve liberty. Still, others argue for a broad interpretation of Congress's powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows Congress to determine what is "necessary" for implementing federal powers.

Separation of powers

The United States Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers, dividing the powers of the federal government among three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Each branch has its own unique roles and responsibilities, with checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch.

The legislative branch, consisting of Congress, is responsible for making laws. Congress has broad powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, including the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, coin money, and establish a court system. While Congress has the power to propose new legislation and enact laws, it must do so within the boundaries set by the Constitution.

The executive branch, led by the President, is responsible for enforcing the laws enacted by Congress. The President has the power to sign bills into law, appoint federal officials, negotiate treaties, and serve as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In interpreting the Constitution, the President considers its original intent and whether a bill is consistent with the allocation of powers.

The judiciary, comprised of the federal court system, has the power to interpret the laws and resolve disputes. While judges are tasked with impartially examining existing laws, they also interpret the Constitution and determine its meaning and scope. This includes reviewing the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and ensuring they fall within the enumerated powers granted to Congress.

The separation of powers among these branches provides a system of checks and balances, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. Each branch has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution within the scope of its duties. Congress, in particular, has the power to interpret the Constitution when crafting and considering bills, ensuring that the laws it passes are consistent with the Constitution.

However, the interpretation of the Constitution is not solely the domain of Congress. The judiciary, through judicial review, plays a significant role in interpreting the Constitution and determining the limits of congressional power. In cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court has interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause, shaping the understanding of congressional powers.

Frequently asked questions