How The Commerce Clause Expands Federal Control

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a significant aspect of the United States Constitution, empowering Congress to expand federal control. This clause, found in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to make laws necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. It allows Congress to interpret and expand its powers to address collective-action problems and ensure effective governance. The Necessary and Proper Clause has been pivotal in shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states, with Supreme Court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) interpreting and challenging its scope. The Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791, further complicates the dynamic by reserving powers not delegated to the federal government for the states or the people, influencing debates about federal overreach and civil liberties.

Explore related products

Supreme Court Expansion of Presidential Power: Unconstitutional Leanings

$46.4 $54.99

Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty

$13.99 $26.99

The Global Expansion of Judicial Power

$14.99 $23.99

John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series XXXIV, No. 2. The Postal Power of Congress; A Study in Constitutional Expansion, pp. 157-337

$16.45

Raised to Obey: The Rise and Spread of Mass Education (The Princeton Economic History of the Western World)

$31.26

A Monetary Theory of Employment (Comparative Politics (Hardcover))

$22.79 $29.99

The Necessary and Proper Clause

> "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 provoked controversy during discussions on the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to its ratification. Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the Clause would grant the federal government boundless power. However, Federalists argued that the Clause would only permit the execution of powers granted by the Constitution.

The landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) ruled that under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress had the power to establish a national bank to carry out its powers to collect taxes, pay debts, and borrow money. The Court held that Congress has implied powers in addition to its enumerated powers. This broad interpretation of the Elastic Clause has allowed expanded Congressional power.

Another example of the Necessary and Proper Clause being invoked is in Juilliard v. Greenman (1884), which considered whether Congress's powers to borrow money, coin money, lay and collect taxes, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce implied the power to make paper notes legal tender for public and private debts under the Clause.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

In 1816, Congress established the Second National Bank of the United States. Many states, including Maryland, opposed the presence of national bank branches within their borders, as they did not want competition for their own banks. Maryland asserted its sovereignty by imposing a tax of $15,000 per year specifically on out-of-state banks operating within the state. James McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank of the United States, refused to pay this tax, which led to the state of Maryland suing him.

The core issue in McCulloch v. Maryland was whether Congress had the implied power to establish a national bank and whether Maryland could tax it. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause or Sweeping Clause) in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This clause 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."

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in favour of McCulloch and the federal government. The Court interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause broadly, concluding that Congress had the implied power to establish a national bank as a means to carry out its enumerated powers, including the power to lay and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare and conduct war, and raise and support armies and navies. According to the Court, the establishment of the national bank was "necessary and proper" to execute these powers effectively.

Furthermore, the Court asserted the supremacy of federal law over state law under the Supremacy Clause. This clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land, binding on all states. The Court held that Maryland's tax on the national bank was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the federal government's constitutional authority to establish the bank and regulate currency.

The McCulloch v. Maryland decision significantly expanded federal power by recognising Congress's implied powers beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution. It set a precedent for a broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing Congress to enact laws that are "appropriate and plainly adapted" to carrying out its enumerated powers. This case continues to shape the balance of power between the federal government and the states, influencing the scope of federal authority in various policy areas.

The Elastic Clause

The Necessary and Proper Clause was included in the Constitution to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which limited federal power to only those powers expressly delegated to the United States. The Clause concludes Article I's list of Congress's enumerated powers with a general statement, granting Congress the authority to use all means necessary and proper for executing those express powers. This includes all implied and incidental powers that are conducive to the beneficial exercise of an enumerated power.

The interpretation of the Elastic Clause has been a subject of debate, with differing philosophies between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson argued for a strict interpretation, suggesting that Congress should only exercise powers directly granted by the Constitution. On the other hand, Hamilton advocated for a broader interpretation, enabling Congress to employ any means necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.

A landmark Supreme Court case in 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland, solidified the broader interpretation of the Elastic Clause. This case established that the Constitution allows for implied powers that are consistent with its spirit. The Elastic Clause has facilitated Congress's ability to adapt its powers to address evolving societal needs, such as civil rights and labor laws. However, debates about the limits of federal power and the role of the Elastic Clause continue to be a significant aspect of constitutional interpretation.

In summary, the Elastic Clause, or the Necessary and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to create laws necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. This clause has been interpreted broadly, allowing for implied powers beyond those explicitly stated in the Constitution. The Elastic Clause has significant implications for federal authority and has enabled Congress to address evolving societal needs.

Explore related products

The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History

$31.04 $59.99

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment

$29.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$143.59 $180

The Tenth Amendment

The text of the Tenth Amendment is as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment is similar to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which states that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and that any powers not expressly delegated to the United States are retained by the states.

The Commerce Clause

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court increasingly heard cases on Congress's power to regulate commerce, leading to an evolution in its jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause. Beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp in 1937, the Court recognised broader grounds for using the Commerce Clause to regulate state activity. The Court held that an activity constituted commerce if it had a "'substantial economic effect' on interstate commerce or if the 'cumulative effect' of one act could impact such commerce.

The use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorise federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited following the end of the Lochner era in 1937. However, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by adopting a more conservative interpretation of the clause. The Court held that Congress only had the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Frequently asked questions