Omar Bennett
The United States Constitution grants the US government both express and implied powers. Implied powers are those that are assumed by the United States government that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. They refer to powers that Congress can exercise but are not directly outlined in the nation's founding document. The constitutional authority for implied powers is derived from the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, gives elasticity to the Constitution, allowing Congress to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry out its stated powers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Basis | The United States Constitution grants the US government expressed and implied powers |
| Definition | Powers assumed by the United States government that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution |
| Scope | Powers that Congress can exercise |
| Sources | The "general welfare clause", the "necessary and proper clause", the "taxing and spending clause", and the "commerce clause" |
| Examples | McCulloch v. Maryland, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Gibbons vs. Ogden, Louisiana Purchase |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Implied powers and the balance of power between national and state governments
The United States Constitution grants the US government both expressed and implied powers. Implied powers are those that are assumed by the government but are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. They refer to powers that Congress can exercise, which are considered "necessary and proper" to carry out its specified powers.
The concept of implied powers has been used to justify certain actions taken by the government, such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, where Thomas Jefferson exceeded his authorised spending cap, and the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791, where President George Washington defended the action by arguing that the sovereign duties of any government implied the right to use whatever means necessary to carry out those duties.
The interpretation of implied powers has had a direct impact on the balance of power between national and state governments. For example, interpretations of implied powers related to the commerce clause have reinforced Congress's authority over individual states. In the 1824 Supreme Court case Gibbons vs. Ogden, Congress's authority over the states of New York and New Jersey was affirmed based on its power to regulate interstate commerce.
Additionally, Congress has used its implied powers to pass laws that may not seem to fall within its constitutional powers, such as gun control laws. The power to regulate firearms is predominantly derived from its expressed power to regulate interstate commerce. Similarly, the creation of a draft to raise an army is another example of implied powers, as this is not directly provided for in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has also played a role in defining the scope of implied powers, particularly in cases involving the president's powers. In the leading case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Court rejected President Truman's argument that he had the inherent power to seize steel mills during the Korean War. The Court's decision set a precedent for considering cases involving implied presidential powers.
Founding Fathers: Educated or Not?
You may want to see also
The Necessary and Proper Clause
The clause reads: "Congress shall have 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." In simpler terms, this means that Congress has the power to make laws that are deemed "necessary and proper" to carry out its specified powers, even if those laws are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
James Wilson: Architect of the US Constitution
You may want to see also
The General Welfare Clause
On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton, and later Justice Roberts, advocated for a broader interpretation. They argued that the General Welfare Clause confers a separate and distinct power to Congress, allowing them to tax and spend for the general welfare beyond the limitations of the enumerated powers. This interpretation has been endorsed by the Supreme Court and has influenced Congress's actions over time.
The Supreme Court, in cases like South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and Buckley v. Valeo (1976), has deferred to Congress's discretion in determining what constitutes "general welfare" and whether a particular expenditure advances it. The Court has questioned whether "general welfare" is a judicially enforceable restriction and has instead focused on evaluating Spending Clause legislation based on additional factors, such as whether spending is in pursuit of the general welfare and whether funding conditions reasonably relate to federal interests.
Sanitization and Security: mysqli_bind_param's True Impact
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$30 $47.99
Implied powers and the US President
The United States Constitution grants the US government both expressed and implied powers to govern the nation. Implied powers are those powers assumed by the United States government that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. They refer to powers that Congress can exercise, but are not directly outlined in the nation's founding document.
The Supreme Court has developed a framework for determining the implied powers of the president based on those powers outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3. The leading case on the president's implied powers is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). In this case, President Truman issued Executive Order 10340, commanding the Secretary of Commerce to "take possession" of steel mills to keep them operational during the Korean War. Truman argued that he had the inherent power to do this to keep the country safe. However, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the Constitution's grant of executive power nor the Commander in Chief Clause authorized the president to do so without congressional authorization.
Justices Robert H. Jackson and Felix Frankfurter agreed with the ruling against Truman but opined that courts should create bases for judicial implication of presidential power in future cases. Indeed, Justice Jackson's opinion in Youngstown is likely the most influential on the president's implied powers. It focuses on the relationship between executive powers and Congress's lawmaking powers. The concurrence set out a framework applicable to implied powers cases: if Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the president to act, the president's power is "at its maximum" and their actions are "presumptively constitutional".
Constitutional scholars Michael Stoke Paulsen and Luke Paulsen note that Justice Jackson's concurrence has been cited in every significant Supreme Court decision regarding the balance of power between the president and Congress.
The Preamble: Constitution's Opening Statement Explained
You may want to see also
Implied powers and the Supreme Court
In the United States, the Constitution grants the government both expressed and implied powers to govern the nation. Implied powers are those powers assumed by the government that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. They refer to powers that Congress can exercise but are not directly outlined in the nation's founding document.
The concept of implied powers has been used to justify certain actions taken by the government, such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, where Thomas Jefferson exceeded his authorised spending cap, and the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791, where President George Washington defended the bank's constitutionality based on the doctrine of implied powers.
The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and applying the concept of implied powers. In the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of the government, arguing that Congress had the right to establish the Second Bank of the United States as it possessed certain implied powers beyond those explicitly stated in the Constitution. Marshall's decision set a precedent for interpreting implied powers, which was later reinforced in the 1824 case Gibbons v. Ogden, where the Court affirmed Congress's authority over New York and New Jersey based on its power to regulate interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court has also addressed implied powers in the context of presidential actions. In the leading case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Court rejected President Truman's argument that he had the inherent power to seize steel mills during the Korean War, asserting that neither the Constitution's grant of executive power nor the Commander in Chief Clause authorized such an action without congressional authorization. Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown has been influential in shaping the understanding of presidential implied powers and their relationship with Congress's lawmaking powers.
Understanding Legal Ways to Terminate Real Estate Contracts
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Implied powers are powers assumed by the United States government that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. They refer to powers that Congress can exercise, but are not directly outlined in the nation's founding document.
The constitutional authority for implied powers is derived from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, also known as the "'elastic clause'. This clause grants Congress the power to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to carry out its stated powers.
Yes, one example is the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791. President George Washington asked Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton to defend the action, and he argued that the sovereign duties of any government implied the right to use whatever means necessary to carry out those duties.
