Necessary and Proper Clause Final paper
Outline
Necessary and Proper Clause
I. Thesis & Introduction
A. Statement: The necessary and
proper clause gives power to people in Congress to make federal laws, although
they should be within the constitutional allowance.
B. Overview/Background: The
Necessary and Proper clause is found in article 1, section 8, and clause 18 of
the Constitution. It was developed to empower the Congress members to make laws
despite their absence in the Constitution, provided they did not violate human
rights. Various cases such as McCulloch V. Maryland upheld the Necessary and
Proper clause (Ray, 2018).
1. Details of Subpoint: The
clause is advantageous since it aids Congress members to pass laws without
consulting the involved departments since they are meant to improve the
well-being of all people in Congress.
2. More details of the Subpoint:
The clause also allowed the execution of powers only allowed in the
Constitution. Therefore, the power was limited, and thus Congress members could
not make laws that violated the rights of the people.
II. Main Point: The members of
Congress had both incidental and instrumental powers.
A. Summary
Joseph’s commentaries
on the constitutionality power provide that the congress team will have both
the incidental and instrumental powers provided in the Constitution. The clause
does not provide additional power to the congress members; hence they maintain
the power vested to them by the Constitution. Questions arise when the powers
are not granted in the Constitution, and thus, the members act as directed by
the law (Magnetti, 2019 ).
B. Subpoint: The powers of
Congress members must be congruent with the constitutional provisions.
1. Details of Subpoint: Some
of the laws passed by Congress members may violate individual constitutional
rights.
2. More details of the Subpoint:
if the passed law violates the constitutional provisions, then the Congress members
have to get rid of them in a bid to uphold human rights.
III. Main Point
Summary of one Supreme Court case
that addresses your clause.
The court case that
addresses the Necessary and Proper clause was McCulloch V. Maryland in 1819. The
case ruled that the Congress members had explicit power to develop a taxation
clause despite its absence in the Constitution. The case was whether the Congress
members had the authority to establish a bank and whether the move was
unconstitutional.
1. Details of Subpoint: The
court ruled favor Congress members.
2. More details of the Subpoint:
The members have the authority to formulate laws provided they are necessary.
B. Subpoint: Congress
members may make laws not provided in the Constitution.
1. Details of Subpoint: The
laws should benefit all people and should not be discriminatory.
2. More details of the Subpoint:
In the cases where laws are discriminatory, the Congress members may be
deterred from implementing them.
IV. Main Point: According
to (Primus & Hills, 2021), the United States constitution gives powers to
the Congress team to participate in the activities that benefit United States
Citizens
1. Details of Subpoint: Apart from the financial
laws, the Congress team is expected to formulate laws as the need arises. The
fundamental facts were not incorporated in the Declaration of independence,
including another clause (Mikhail, 2019).
The clause provides the Congress members with authority to establish laws that
they find beneficial to their people, enhancing their operations.
2. More details of the Subpoint:
This improves the well-being of Congress members and the people in the United
States.
B. Subpoint: Many people
confuse the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution while the two are
unrelated (Strang, 2019).
1. Details of Subpoint: Declaration
of independence is an interpretive clause and thus unites all people in the
United States. It is considered a sign of unity. The Constitution provides laws
that people should adhere to, including the Necessary and Proper clause. The Congress
members should, however, exercise it within the recommended powers (Hammer, 2021).
2. More details of the Subpoint:
The clause was developed to incorporate the fundamental facts. Not all the
laws were included in the Constitution, and thus, more were likely to arise
with time. Thus, there was a need for provision whereby Congress members could
formulate what was considered good for the people.
V. Conclusion & Future
Research
A. Closing: In summary, the
Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress members powers to make laws that
could benefit the people while upholding their constitutional rights.
1. Clear and concise summation
of how student’s research supports thesis: The Necessary and Proper Clause
is supported by various cases. In most of them, the court ruled in favor of the
members of Congres’s actions.
2. More details of the Subpoint:
The court case and literature support the clause. The Declaration of
independence does not incorporate the clause since it is a sign of unity and
not the laws guarding the country.
B. Future Research: The
recommended future research is on the impact of the Necessary and Proper clause
on the current policies in the United States.
1. Brief discussion of possible
future research on the topic: Despite the role of the Necessary and Proper
clause in shaping the United States, less has been done on its impact on
current policies, thus the need for further research.
2. More details of the Subpoint: The
laws imposed by Congress members should be coherent with the Constitution, thus
impacting current policies.
References
Hammer, J. (2021). Common
good originalism: Our tradition and our path forward. Harvard Journal
of Law and Public Policy, 44(3), 917-959. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/common-good-originalism-our-tradition-path/docview/2568310479/se-2?accountid=131932
Magnetti, S. (2019). The “rational
federalist”: Synthesizing necessity and propriety in the sweeping clause. St.John’s
Law Review, 93(1), 141-176. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/rational-federalist-synthesizing-necessity/docview/2308512513/se-2?accountid=131932
Mikhail, J. (2019). A
Tale of Two Sweeping Clauses. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 42,
29.
Primus, R., & Hills, M. (2021).
Suspect spheres, not enumerated powers: A guide for leaving the lamppost. Michigan
Law Review, 119(7), 1431-1502. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/suspect-spheres-not-enumerated-powers-guide/docview/2539314173/se-2?accountid=131932
Ray, C. (2018). John
Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, and the concept of constitutional
sovereignty. Perspectives on Political Science, 47(2),
65-77.
Strang, L. J. (2019). The
Declaration of Independence: No Special Role in Constitutional
Interpretation. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 42, 43.