Implied Powers Of Congress: Exploring Constitutional Interpretation

The concept of implied powers in the US Constitution is derived from Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Elastic Clause. This clause grants Congress 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. This means that while Congress has broad powers, it cannot do whatever it wants. The implied powers of Congress are those that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution but are assumed to be necessary to implement the 27 powers named in Article I. The interpretation of implied powers has been a controversial and hotly debated topic, with the Supreme Court recognizing and expanding these powers in the McCulloch v. Maryland case in 1819.

Explore related products

Contest for Constitutional Authority: The Abortion and War Powers Debates

$25.88 $29.95

Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice

$39.46 $49.95

War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority

$28.99 $31

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

$35 $14.95

Revolution Blueprint: Not a revolution of violence, but of law, duty, and constitutional authority.

$17.99 $17.99

Keepers of the Common Good: The People, Opinion, and the Social Foundations of Constitutional Authority

$134.8 $165

The McCulloch decision

The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In 1816, Congress passed a bill creating the Second Bank of the United States. A year later, the Bank opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland, where it carried out all the normal operations of a bank. In 1818, however, the Maryland legislature voted to impose a tax on all banks within the state that were not chartered by the legislature. The Second Bank of the United States refused to comply with the law, resulting in a lawsuit against its head, James William McCulloch. The state successfully argued on appeal to the state appellate court that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established two important principles in constitutional law. Firstly, the Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution gives the US federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution. Marshall argued that Congress had the right to establish the bank, as the Constitution grants Congress certain implied powers beyond those explicitly stated. Marshall's opinion closely followed an argument made by Alexander Hamilton to President George Washington in 1791, in which he defended the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States. Secondly, the Court established that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

The clause was included in the Constitution to address the limitations of the Articles of Confederation, which restricted federal power to only those powers expressly delegated to the United States. The Necessary and Proper Clause, therefore, clarifies that Congress has the authority to use all means "necessary and proper" to execute its enumerated powers, including implied and incidental powers.

The interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause has been a subject of debate between different political parties for several decades. One notable example is the dispute between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison regarding the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States in 1791. Hamilton argued that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and that the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers. On the other hand, Madison contended that Congress lacked the authority to charter a bank.

The landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 further defined the Necessary and Proper Clause. In this case, the Court ruled that Congress had the implied power to establish a bank, as it was a suitable instrument to aid in Congress's express taxing and spending powers. This decision set a precedent for interpreting the clause as granting Congress implied powers in addition to its enumerated powers.

The Elastic Clause

The historical debate surrounding the Elastic Clause is often associated with the differing views of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson, advocating for a strict interpretation, argued that Congress should only exercise powers directly granted by the Constitution. In contrast, Hamilton championed a broader interpretation, contending that Congress should be able to employ any means necessary to fulfil its responsibilities. Hamilton's argument influenced the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, which solidified the broader interpretation of the Elastic Clause and established the doctrine of implied powers.

The McCulloch v. Maryland decision settled that the scope of Congress's implied powers is very broad. This decision, combined with the broad nature of some enumerated powers, such as the power to tax and regulate interstate commerce, has resulted in a national government with extensive regulatory capabilities. The Necessary and Proper Clause has been interpreted to grant incidental powers to Congress, enabling it to pass laws that facilitate the full exercise of its enumerated powers.

In conclusion, the Elastic Clause, or the Necessary and Proper Clause, is a critical component of the US Constitution, providing Congress with the flexibility to address evolving societal needs and complexities. The interpretation and application of this clause have been contentious, with the Supreme Court playing a pivotal role in shaping its scope and influence on federal authority.

Explore related products

The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

$12.99 $12.99

The Believer's Authority: What You Didn't Learn in Church

$14.3 $16.99

American Constitutional Law, Volume I: The Structure of Government

$98.8 $130

Constitutional Law as Fiction: Narrative in the Rhetoric of Authority

$20.21 $40.95

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

Dignity and Judicial Authority (Theoretical Perspectives in Law)

$25.39 $39.95

The scope of Congress's implied powers

The United States is a government of limited powers, meaning it possesses only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. However, the concept of "implied powers" refers to powers Congress possesses that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The scope of Congress's implied powers is broad and has been a major issue throughout US history.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, grants Congress powers that are not specifically listed in the Constitution but are assumed to be necessary to implement the 27 powers named in Article I. This clause is the basis for implied powers, as it allows Congress to pass laws considered "necessary and proper" for effectively exercising its enumerated powers. Alexander Hamilton first articulated the concept of implied powers, which was later recognised by the US Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.

Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of any government imply the right to use whatever means are necessary to carry out those duties. In other words, Congress has the implied power to adopt any means useful to carrying out the enumerated powers. For example, Congress has the power to raise an army and navy, and thus it has an implied power to create an air force, even if the Framers did not envision such a use.

Some examples of Congress's implied powers include gun control laws, the federal minimum wage, and the creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The creation of a national bank

The McCulloch v. Maryland case centred around the power of Congress to charter a bank, specifically the Second National Bank established in 1816. This case brought to light broader issues regarding the division of powers between state and federal governments. The state of Maryland had passed legislation to impose taxes on the Second National Bank, which was challenged by James W. McCulloch, a federal cashier at the Baltimore branch. The Supreme Court's ruling in favour of McCulloch established two key constitutional principles.

Firstly, the implied powers doctrine, which interprets the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution broadly. This clause, also known as the Sweeping Clause, grants Congress the authority to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper". According to this interpretation, Congress has the implied power to use all appropriate means necessary to execute its express powers. This includes the power to establish a national bank, as it is necessary for Congress to adequately carry out its explicit powers, such as coining and regulating the value of money, borrowing money, and levying taxes.

Secondly, the McCulloch v. Maryland ruling affirmed the supremacy of the federal government over state governments. Chief Justice John Marshall argued that allowing a state government to tax a national government institution would violate the Constitution's supremacy clause in Article 6. He asserted that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," and that the American people did not intend to make the federal government dependent on the states.

In conclusion, the implied powers of Congress to create a national bank are derived from the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland. This interpretation grants Congress the authority to employ the means necessary to execute its express powers, including the establishment of a national bank to effectively manage the nation's finances and solve collective-action problems for the states.

Frequently asked questions