The “Necessary and Proper” Clause Essay Example

Court of the case McCulloch v. Maryland (Bloom 2014). Presided by Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland case sought to make a determination on the constitutionality of the First Bank of United States which had been established by the Federal government (Bloom 2014). The bank's charter was not renewed by the Congress in 1811 prompting establishment of the Second Bank of the United States in 1816 when the US was on the verge of bankruptcy. James Madison opinion was that the Necessary and Proper clause could not be interpreted to authorize the bank’s operations since in his view, ‘Necessary’ only referred to measures that are essential to enable the federal government to implement its powers (Bloom 2014). On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton, the then Secretary of Treasury argued in favor of the bank. Hamilton believed that the term ‘Necessary’ should be interpreted to mean ‘convenient’ or ‘useful’. Notably, the espoused national bank that George Washington, the then president intended to create was supposed to stimulate economic growth in the young republic and also establish credit for the nation (Bloom 2014). The banking entity that the then administration intended to come up with was also aimed at facilitating the collection of taxes for the purpose of funding the army (Bloom 2014). The proponents of establishing a national bank also believed it was needed to create regulation for the paper money issued by state banks. The idea, even after the establishment of a national bank, remained unpopular in some quarters. Several individual states, however, viewed a national bank as a competitor to the states’ banks hence opting to make an argument that it was unconstitutional for

Congress to support. The states argued that the Congress lacked the powers to form a bank. The State of Maryland, which was amongst the states opposed to the National Bank establishment, slammed the local branch with $15000 annual tax which the bank refused to pay culminating in the case reaching the Supreme Court (Bloom 2014). It was not until the Supreme Court’s intervention that the matter was settled.

Maryland’s argument was that as a sovereign state, it was empowered to impose taxes on all businesses operating within its jurisdiction (Bloom 2014). In contrast, McCulloch’s attorneys, who certainly shared the sentiments of the Federal Government argument was that the establishment of a national bank by the Congress was both ‘Necessary and Proper’ as it would be enabling execution of its powers. The latter’s argument was supported by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall, agreed that indeed the Necessary and Proper Clause did imply the powers the government was pursuing including the establishment of a bank (Bloom 2014). One of the immediate impacts of the ruling on the Necessary and Proper clause was the enhancement and recognition of the power the Congress wields in matters concerning commerce, an area where subsequent rulings have been influenced by McCulloch vs Maryland (Bodenhamer 2012). However, the most important conclusion drawn from the case is the provision that the Congress can actually enact laws on matters that are not expressly outlined by the Constitution as long as if the objective is to achieve execution of enumerated powers. The ramifications of the ruling can be felt even today. Various other cases affecting different spheres of Americans’ lives have also been addressed in

a manner that upholds the Chief Justice John Marshall’s interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
One conspicuous case in the recent times is the U.S. v. Comstock (2010). In this particular case, the ruling cited the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law by voting 7-2 that a law that had been passed by the Congress allowing for continued incarceration of a mentally ill sexual offender who is still deemed to be a dangerous to the community past the date the prisoner would otherwise have been released (Harrison & Rainey 2013). The ruling was informed by the notion that the Congress has the power to legislate on broad issues in pursuit of furtherance of enumerated powers of which prisoner matters were not an exception (Harrison & Rainey 2013). Furthermore, the Court argued that the Congress had a long history of involvement in the provision of mental care to incarcerated people and that the Federal government, as a custodian of prisoners, it has the constitutional power to protect the members of public.

While some critics have viewed the clause as a license to the Congress to institute laws that it deems right with almost no limitations, the clause essentially set out to define the role of Congress in relation to other arms of the government and state entities. This is without offending the doctrine the separation of powers and the enumerated powers principle espoused by the Framers of the Constitution. It should be noted that the clause does not permit the Congress to interfere, impede or instruct other branches of government in their execution of their constitutional mandates.

References
Abbott, E. B., Hetzel,

O. J., & American Bar Association. (2010). Homeland security and emergency management: A legal guide for state and local governments. Chicago, IL: Section of State and Local Government Law, American Bar Association.
Janda, K., Berry, J. M., Goldman, J., Schildkraut, D. J., & Hula, K. W. (2014). The challenge of democracy: American government in global politics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Bloom, L. H. (2014). Do great cases make bad law?.
Bodenhamer, D. J. (2012). The revolutionary Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, K., & Rainey, B. (2013). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of legal and ethical aspects of sex offender treatment and management. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.