Constitutional Law
Marshall's interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause
** Marshall had an expansive interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause - Marshall argued that the term "necessary" does not mean absolutely indispensable but includes anything that is convenient, useful, or conducive to the legitimate exercise of the enumerated powers. - He argued that when state laws conflict with federal laws enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal laws prevail // NATIONAL SUPREMACY
The taxing and spending clause and how it limits (or fails to limit) congressional power (note NFIB v. Sibelius)
** The Taxing and Spending Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." -
Substantial Effects Doctrine:
Doctrine: Congress can regulate activities that, while intrastate, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
The rule in Printz, and how it protects (or perhaps does not protect) state autonomy
** The rule in Printz v. United States (1997) is associated with the protection of state autonomy and the limitations on the federal government's ability to compel state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory programs. In Printz, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. Anti-Commandeering Principle: Printz reinforced the anti-commandeering principle, which holds that the federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enact or administer federal regulatory programs. The Court asserted that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to "commandeer" the resources or decision-making authority of state officials. Background of the Case: The Brady Act required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on individuals seeking to purchase handguns. The Court struck down this provision, holding that it violated the Tenth Amendment by impermissibly commandeering state executive branch officials to carry out federal regulatory duties. Protection of State Autonomy: The Printz decision was seen as a victory for state autonomy and a limitation on federal power. By preventing the federal government from conscripting state officials to enforce federal laws, the Court sought to preserve the independence and decision-making authority of state governments. Limits on Federal Overreach: Printz reflects the Court's concern about potential federal overreach and the erosion of state sovereignty. The ruling articulates a check on the federal government's ability to use state resources and personnel to implement federal policies, particularly when such policies intrude upon traditional state functions.
Marbury V. Madison
** established the concept of judicial review which was an important addition to the system of checks and balances - In the last few days before John Adams term ended, the federalist controlled congress passed the Judiciary act of 1801 which increased number of federal judgeships - John Adams appointed individuals to these positions and one of these individuals was William Marbury - John Adams signed these commissions but some were not delivered by the time the term rolled over - the new secretary of state, James Madison, thought the commissions not delivered became null and void - Marbury filed a lawsuit against Marshall requesting that the supreme court write a writ of mandamus - Chief Justice John Marshall was conflicted ---- as he did not want to cause tension with the new Jeffersonian admin - Chief Justice Marshall held that Marbury was entitled to a commission but that that the court did not have the authority to write a writ of mandamus - Argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it expanded the court's original jurisdiction beyond the powers delegated to the court in the constitution
E.C. Knight Case
**Court held that manufacturing (in this case, refining sugar) was not considered interstate commerce and, therefore, the federal government had limited authority to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. This decision reflected a narrow interpretation of federal power in regulating economic activities within individual states.
Shreveport Rate Case
**Court held that the Commerce Clause empowered Congress to regulate not only the rates charged by railroads for purely interstate transportation but also those rates for intrastate transportation when they had a direct and substantial effect on interstate commerce. Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate intrastate rates when they affected interstate commerce. Reasoning: based on the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, recognizing that certain intrastate activities could have a significant impact on the national economy and interstate transportation. The Court concluded that when intrastate rates were so intertwined with interstate rates and commerce that they affected the overall regulatory scheme and the flow of interstate commerce, the federal government, through the ICC, had the authority to regulate them.
Hammer v. Dagenhart
**Held that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 was unconstitutional (which prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced with child labor) Reasoning: reflected a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause and a commitment to a more limited view of federal power. The decision reflected the prevailing legal philosophy at the time, emphasizing a strict separation of federal and state authority, particularly in matters related to labor and industry - He argued that the federal government had overstepped its authority by regulating intrastate (within a single state) commerce and by attempting to regulate conditions of employment, which were traditionally matters left to the states.
Holdings and the Court's reasoning in the Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames)
**Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting the interstate transportation of lottery tickets. Reasoning: the application of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution), which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Court held that the transportation of lottery tickets across state lines constituted interstate commerce, and Congress had the authority to regulate it to address moral and social issues associated with gambling. - expansive interpretation Champion v. Ames is significant for its affirmation of Congress's power to regulate certain activities related to commerce, even when those activities involve moral or social concerns.
The "switch in time" in 1937
- A pivotal moment in the history of the United States Supreme Court during the New Deal era. - During the early years of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the Supreme Court had struck down several key pieces of legislation aimed at addressing the economic challenges of the Great Depression. The Court had been divided, with a conservative majority often declaring New Deal programs unconstitutional. This series of decisions led to tensions between the President and the court - In 1937, the Court was set to hear a case known as West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, which challenged the constitutionality of a minimum wage law in Washington State. The previous year, the Court had struck down a similar minimum wage law - Faced with the possibility of a constitutional crisis and the potential for the Court-packing plan to increase # of justices, Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously been in the conservative camp, changed his voting pattern. In the West Coast Hotel case, he sided with the majority in upholding the minimum wage law. - signaled a shift in the Court's approach to New Deal legislation. - Roberts's change in stance is often referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine" because it is believed to have defused the tensions between the Executive and the Judiciary. With Roberts joining the majority in upholding economic regulations, the Court's legitimacy was preserved, and Roosevelt's court-packing plan lost its urgency.
Key Aspects of Taxing and Spending Clause
- Broad Grant of Power: The Taxing and Spending Clause provides Congress with a broad grant of power to raise revenue through taxes and to spend that revenue for the general welfare. This clause has been interpreted expansively, giving Congress considerable latitude in determining how to allocate resources for the benefit of the nation. - Conditional Nature: The clause includes language about providing for the "common Defence and general Welfare." Some debates revolve around whether there are any inherent limitations on Congress's power, or if the power is virtually unlimited as long as the purpose is framed as promoting the general welfare. - No Express Limitations: Unlike the Commerce Clause, the Taxing and Spending Clause does not contain express limitations or prohibitions. Instead, debates about the scope of this power often revolve around the broader question of federalism, separation of powers, and the constitutional limits on government action.
Limitations & Debates of Taxing and Spending Clause
- General Welfare Clause Interpretation: A significant point of contention is the interpretation of the phrase "general Welfare." Critics argue that this clause should be narrowly construed to limit Congress's power to spend only on matters explicitly listed in the Constitution, while proponents argue for a broader interpretation that allows Congress discretion in determining what promotes the general welfare. - Conditionality of Spending: The Supreme Court, in cases like South Dakota v. Dole (1987), has upheld certain conditions on federal spending, such as the withholding of federal funds to states that did not raise their drinking age to 21. However, the Court has suggested that conditions should be related to the federal interest in the funded program. - Limits on Coercion: The Court has recognized that there are limits to Congress's ability to use its spending power to coerce states into taking particular actions. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid, which threatened to withhold existing funds if states did not comply, went too far and was unconstitutionally coercive.
Three Broad Categories of Activity Congress can Regulate under the Commerce Power —
- channels of interstate commerce (Gibbons v. Ogden) - the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (Shreveport Rate Case) - activities having a substantial effect upon interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn/Gonzales V. Raich)
Marshall's interpretation of the Commerce Clause
- upheld a broad interpretation of commerce clause In Gibbons v. Ogden, he stated that commerce includes not just the buying and selling of goods but also the entire commercial intercourse and navigation. This expansive definition laid the groundwork for a more comprehensive interpretation of federal regulatory authority. - emphasized that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate both interstate commerce (commerce between states) and foreign commerce. - This interpretation was crucial in establishing federal authority over economic activities that crossed state lines. - Marshall asserted that the power to regulate interstate commerce is an exclusive federal power, and state regulations that interfere with or impede interstate commerce are unconstitutional. // reinforced the idea of federal supremacy of federal law matters in interstate trade/navigation **Marshall's interpretation of the Commerce Clause laid the foundation for a broader federal role in regulating economic activities, ensuring a unified national market, and preventing state interference with interstate commerce.
Dormant Commerce Clause:
Concept: While the Commerce Clause explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, the concept of the dormant Commerce Clause arises from the idea that states should not unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. Limitations on States: The dormant Commerce Clause is an implied restriction on state regulations that may interfere with or discriminate against interstate commerce.
Interstate Commerce:
Definition: Commerce or economic activity that involves the movement of goods, services, or people across state lines. Regulation: Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.
The dormant commerce power...what is it?
Also known as the negative or implicit Commerce Clause, refers to the idea that even in the absence of federal regulation, state and local governments should not enact laws or regulations that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. While the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, the Dormant Commerce Clause arises from the implication that states should avoid hindering the flow of commerce between states
Intrastate Commerce:
Definition: Commerce that occurs entirely within the borders of a single state. Regulation: Generally, the regulation of intrastate commerce falls under the authority of the individual states unless it has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.
Commerce Power Limitations:
Direct Regulation: Congress has the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Non-Economic Activities: There have been debates about the extent of Congress's power to regulate non-economic activities under the Commerce Clause.
HYPOTHETICALS
Banning shipment of products/production of products for shipment/MANUFACTURING: Constitutional - look at U.S v. darby Banning cultivation of products for personal use? Constitutional - look at Gonzalez v. Raich // cultivation is an economic issue Banning possession of product or products constitutional? Constitutional - look at Gonzalez v. Raich Banning of product for consumption // farming Wickard v. Filburn
Post New Deal Cases
Collectively illustrated a shift in the Court's approach, recognizing the expansive authority of Congress to regulate economic and social activities under the Commerce Clause. The decisions had lasting implications for the balance of federal and state powers and the scope of civil rights legislation in the United States.
How these cases differ...
E.C. Knight and Hammer v. Dagenhart represent cases where the Court adopted a more restrictive view of federal power, especially concerning manufacturing and labor conditions within states. In contrast, the Lottery Case and Shreveport Rate Cases showcase a broader interpretation of federal authority, particularly in regulating anti-competitive practices and interstate commerce
Implied Powers
Implied powers are powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution but can be reasonably assumed by enumerated powers that are specifically stated in the constitution. McCulloch V. Maryland -- upheld the constitutionality of the creation of a national bank by Congress, arguing that it was an implied power necessary and proper for carrying out other enumerated powers, such as the power to tax and spend. ** crucial to shaping the scope of the federal government and allowed for flexibility as the federal gov. grows and evolves ** critics argue it could lead to an expansion of federal power beyond it limits ** typically substantiated by the elastic clause
The South Dakota v. Dole test
In this case, the Court addressed the federal government's ability to condition a state's receipt of federal highway funds on the state's adoption of a minimum drinking age. The Court's decision set forth a framework often referred to as the "Dole test." Application in South Dakota v. Dole: In the South Dakota v. Dole case, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the condition tying federal highway funds to the adoption of a minimum drinking age. The Court found that the condition was unambiguous, related to the federal interest in highway safety, and was not unduly coercive. The Court also emphasized that states had a genuine choice in accepting or rejecting the condition. Significance: The Dole test established guidelines for assessing the constitutionality of conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds by states. While it provides some limitations on Congress's spending power, the test has been influential in subsequent cases involving conditional grants and has contributed to the ongoing dialogue about the balance between federal and state powers.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
Issue: The case dealt with Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. Holding: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the constitutionality of Title II. The Court held that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate private businesses that served the public, as racial discrimination in these establishments affected interstate commerce.
Darby v. United States
Issue: The case dealt with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, which established minimum wage and overtime pay eligibility standards. Holding: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the FLSA and rejected a challenge to its constitutionality. The Court held that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the conditions of labor, including setting minimum wage and maximum hour provisions, as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce. Significance: Darby marked a departure from earlier cases, particularly those from the pre-New Deal era, that had limited the scope of federal power. The decision affirmed Congress's authority to regulate economic activities that affected interstate commerce, contributing to a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Wickard v. Filburn
Issue: The case involved the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which aimed to stabilize crop prices by limiting production. Roscoe Filburn, a farmer, exceeded his government-imposed wheat production quota for personal consumption. Holding: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the regulation, asserting that Filburn's personal wheat consumption, despite being local and not for sale, had a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. The Court extended the reach of the Commerce Clause to include activities that, when aggregated, could substantially affect interstate commerce. Significance: Wickard v. Filburn is often cited for its expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It marked a high point in the Court's deference to Congress's power to regulate even seemingly local and non-commercial activities that could have broader economic impacts.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Issue: This case addressed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Holding: The Supreme Court held that employment practices that disproportionately affected minorities could be considered discriminatory, even if there was no overt intent to discriminate. This case established the disparate impact theory as a valid method for proving employment discrimination.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Issue: This case involved the application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act to Ollie's Barbecue, a restaurant in Alabama, which claimed it did not engage in significant interstate commerce. Holding: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the application of Title II to Ollie's Barbecue. The Court reiterated that Congress had the authority to regulate activities that, when aggregated, had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
How to resolve modern Commerce cases using the standards laid out in U.S. v. Lopez and applied in later cases.
Limitations on the Commerce Clause: Rationale: The Court, in U.S. v. Lopez, emphasized that there are limits to what Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the regulation of firearms in a school zone did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Importance of Economic Activity: Nexus with Interstate Commerce: The Court emphasized the need for a substantial connection between the regulated activity and interstate commerce. In Lopez, the majority argued that the possession of a firearm in a school zone was not inherently an economic activity with a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Three Categories of Commerce Regulation: Channels of Interstate Commerce: Congress has the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce, such as highways and waterways. Instrumentalities of Interstate Commerce: Congress can regulate vehicles and vessels involved in interstate commerce. Activities with a Substantial Effect on Interstate Commerce: Congress can regulate activities that, when aggregated, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Clear Connection to Interstate Commerce: Guidance for Legislation: The Court suggested that for a federal law to be constitutionally valid under the Commerce Clause, there should be a clear and identifiable connection between the regulated activity and interstate commerce. The Court found that the Gun-Free School Zones Act lacked this connection in the case of Lopez.
NFIB v. Sibelius
NFIB v. Sebelius was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare. While the primary focus of the case was on the individual mandate's penalty provision, the decision had implications for the interpretation of the Taxing and Spending Clause. - The ACA sought to expand Medicaid by requiring states to extend coverage to a larger population or risk losing existing Medicaid funding. The challengers argued that this expansion was unconstitutionally coercive, as it placed an undue financial burden on the states. - The Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that while Congress had the authority to expand Medicaid, the penalty for noncompliance (the withdrawal of existing Medicaid funding) was unduly coercive. As a result, the Court ruled that the federal government could not penalize states that chose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion, making this aspect of the ACA optional for the states.
The dormant commerce power...what purpose does it serve
Promotion of Economic Unity: It aims to promote economic unity among the states by preventing states from enacting protectionist measures or favoring in-state economic interests at the expense of out-of-state competitors. Prevention of Balkanization: The Dormant Commerce Clause helps prevent the balkanization of the national economy, ensuring that the free flow of goods and services is not impeded by conflicting state regulations. Facilitation of National Markets: By limiting state interference in interstate commerce, the Dormant Commerce Clause facilitates the development and maintenance of national markets, allowing businesses to operate more efficiently across state lines.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause (of Article IV). What rights does it protect (and not protect)?
Rights Protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause: The Privileges and Immunities Clause aims to prevent discrimination against out-of-state citizens by ensuring that they receive the same basic rights and protections as the citizens of the state in which they are located. The clause primarily protects fundamental rights and economic privileges, such as the right to travel, the right to engage in gainful employment, and access to the courts. Rights Not Protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause: The Privileges and Immunities Clause does not protect certain rights that are not considered fundamental or essential to the concept of citizenship. State-specific privileges, such as voting or eligibility for certain public offices, are generally not covered by the clause. Additionally, the clause does not prevent states from distinguishing between residents and non-residents in areas that are not fundamental to the concept of citizenship.
The Dole Test
Spending Power Basis: The Dole test is grounded in the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to spend money for the general welfare. The Court acknowledged that Congress has broad discretion in determining how to spend federal funds. Conditions Must Be Unambiguous: - Clear and Unambiguous: The conditions imposed by Congress must be clearly stated and unambiguous. States should have a clear understanding of the requirements attached to the receipt of federal funds. Related to the Federal Interest: Promoting "General Welfare": The conditions must be related to the federal interest in the funded program. They should promote the general welfare and be germane to the federal program in question. Not Coercive: - Not Unduly Coercive: The conditions must not be unduly coercive. While Congress has the power to attach conditions, it cannot use its spending power to coerce states into taking actions that would otherwise be outside the scope of its enumerated powers. Voluntary Acceptance: - Voluntary Acceptance: States must have a genuine choice in accepting or rejecting the conditions. If the conditions are overly coercive, the choice effectively becomes compulsion, violating principles of federalism.
The dormant commerce power...Pike v. Bruce Test
The Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) case established a test to determine the constitutionality of state regulations that incidentally burden interstate commerce. The test is used by courts to evaluate whether a state law or regulation that affects interstate commerce is valid or if it represents an undue burden. The key elements of the Pike test include: - Legitimate Local Interest: The state regulation must serve a legitimate local public interest. - Incidentally Burdensome on Interstate Commerce: The regulation must only incidentally burden interstate commerce. -Balancing Test: The court must weigh the state's interest against the burden imposed on interstate commerce. If the burden on commerce is excessive in relation to the local benefits, the regulation may be deemed unconstitutional. The Pike test is a balancing act, recognizing that some state regulations may incidentally impact interstate commerce but allowing them if the local benefits justify the burden on commerce. The test provides a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of state regulations that may have both local and interstate implications, ensuring a careful consideration of the interests involved.
The market participant exception--what is the Court's rationale for this exception?
The U.S. Supreme Court's rationale for the market participant exception is grounded in principles of federalism and the notion that states, as sovereign entities, should have the right to participate freely in the marketplace alongside private entities without being unduly restricted by federal constitutional constraints. Some key aspects of the Court's rationale include: - State Sovereignty: The exception recognizes the sovereignty of states to engage in economic activities without interference from federal restrictions on commerce. - Voluntary Participation: When a state voluntarily participates in the market, it is treated like any other market participant. The state is subject to the same market forces and competition as private entities. - Preserving State Autonomy: The exception helps preserve state autonomy in economic matters, allowing states to make decisions in their own economic interest without being restricted by federal limitations intended to curb regulatory excesses.
The Alternative Argument Marshall rejected...
The alternative argument that Marshall rejected was a narrow or strict interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. This narrower interpretation held that Congress could only exercise powers that were absolutely necessary for the execution of the specifically enumerated powers, and nothing more. This view would have limited Congress to only those actions deemed indispensable and directly linked to the enumerated powers. ** Influenced the understanding of necessary and proper clause and expanded the scope of implied powers, allowing for a more flexible and adaptable federal government.
The market participant exception--what is it?
The market participant exception applies when a state or local government enters a particular market or industry as a direct participant by buying or selling goods and services without being subject to the usual restrictions imposed by the Dormant Commerce Clause.
What is the 2-part test (articulated in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper) used to resolve Privileges and Immunities cases?
Two-Part Test (Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper): The Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper (1985) case articulated a two-part test to determine whether a state law or regulation violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The test involves two steps: Substantial Discrimination: The first part of the test asks whether there is substantial discrimination against out-of-state citizens. If a law treats out-of-state citizens differently from in-state citizens in a way that significantly interferes with their ability to pursue a common calling or enjoy basic privileges, it may be considered unconstitutional. Substantial Justification: If the court finds substantial discrimination, the second part of the test examines whether the state has a substantial justification for the disparate treatment. The state must show that there is a substantial reason for the discrimination that is closely related to the state's interest in protecting the welfare of its own citizens. The two-part test seeks to balance the rights of out-of-state citizens with the state's legitimate interests. If a state law survives both parts of the test, it is likely to be considered constitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. This test provides a framework for analyzing cases where discrimination against out-of-state citizens is alleged, allowing for a careful examination of the balance between state interests and individual rights.
Why U.S. v. Lopez marked a turning point (of sorts) in the modern Court's Commerce Clause approach...
United States v. Lopez marked a turning point in the modern Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence by imposing limits on the scope of federal power. - Court addressed the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school Commerce Clause Challenge: Lopez's legal team challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. **Held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. - outlined the limits on federal power, emphasizing that the regulation of possession of a firearm near a school was not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. - The government contended that the possession of firearms in school zones could lead to an environment of fear and violence, which might disrupt the educational process. In turn, a disruption in education was argued to have potential economic repercussions. A poorly educated workforce, it was suggested, could negatively impact interstate commerce by limiting the productivity and competitiveness of the labor force. **It marked a point where the Court clarified that there needed to be a more direct and substantial connection to interstate commerce for federal regulation to be constitutionally valid
The difference b/w Market Participant Exception & Dormant Commerce Power
applies specifically to states or local governments when they are active participants in the market. When a state acts in a regulatory capacity, imposing restrictions on private actors in the market, the Dormant Commerce Clause limitations still apply, and the market participant exception does not come into play
Implied Powers (Broad Sense)
implied powers have an expansive view regarding the necessary and proper clause // proponents argue from the broad interpretation that congress has the authority to pass all laws that are considered useful or conducive to the effective operation of the functioning government even if not ABSOLUTELY necessary - allows for greater flexibility on labeling the powers delegated to the federal government
Implied Powers (Strict Sense)
these powers must be directly tied to the constitution and necessary for the execution of enumerated powers // limits the scope of the federal authority to powers that are only absolutely necessary for the functioning of the government as outlined in the constitution
