The Necessary and Proper Clause

The 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.


The Necessary and Proper Clause, located in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, became one of the most widely interpreted clauses in the entire Constitution after it's addition during the Constitutional Convention. Federalists and Anti-Federalists constantly debated exactly what "necessary and proper" meant in terms of federal power during the ratification debates. Did it only give Congress the power to act on its other Constitutional powers, or did it essentially allow Congress to have unlimited power over any matter it wished under the pretense it was "necessary and proper"? Remarkably, this debate didn't subside once the Constitution was ratified, as the interpretation of this clause with regards to federal powers became a key point of contention for political parties. Even today, the clause is used as Constitutional justification for a wide variety of federal laws.

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Arguments

During the ratification debates, Federalists argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause merely specified that Congress had the power to make any laws it deemed necessary in enforcing its other Constitutional powers. It wouldn't give Congress any extraordinary powers, nor would it allow Congress to infringe on state powers. It merely served to clarify that Congress could act on its powers, in case states attempted to take power away from the federal government by saying it had no enforcement power over it's Constitutional rights. Alexander Hamilton made this argument in The Federalist 33, which James Madison agreed with in The Federalist 44.

Anti-Federalists, however, saw the clause instead as an attempt by the federal government to seize limitless power. The clause opened up the Constitution, with it's mostly specific set of Congressional powers, to a broad interpretation where essentially any law passed by Congress would be constitutional because it would be "necessary and proper." No matter how absurd, outrageous, or tyrannical a law may be, Congress could pass it constitutionally simply by arguing that it was necessary and proper. The clause was thus too open-ended to be in the Constitution according to Anti-Federalists, and thus threatened the sustainability of republicanism in the United States.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License