The Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution is Unnecessary

1. Recital When you break down the Constitution like a legal document, which it is, you can see that the Necessary and Proper Clause actually grants Congress no power whatsoever but is merely what is called a recital. Recital - a detailed account [1] It is placed at the end of Article I, Section 8 as an explanation—that is, a “recital. ” A recital is a passage in a legal document that has no substantive legal effect, but serves to inform the reader of assumptions or facts behind the document. Another example of a recital in the Constitution is the Preamble. [2] This "clause" was placed in this position merely to explain the purposes given in the previous section when dealing with the list of Congressional powers. There is no way the Founders would have written in such a broad and over sweeping clause. Given it's status as a legal recital it is unnecessary to use this clause. a) The Way It WorksThis was placed at the end of Article I as a recital to be used with the enumerated powers. Such as: "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution. .. the power to levy taxes". This clause doesn't give Congress a new power but rather is a recital to the enumerated powers saying how Congress should pass law and that is only to support the enumerated powers. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have. 2. Nonsensical If you look at the wording of this clause it says it gives Congress the power to make laws that help in the execution of the enumerated powers. This does not make sense. This gives the Congress the power to pass laws (a power it already has) to enforce its own powers. Congress does not need this power to be re given to it. Then what supports the execution of the laws passed to enforce the execution of the Constitutional law? Do we need a clause saying they can pass laws to pass laws to enforce the Constitution? This clause seems trite and meandering. If you pass a law that falls under the Necessary and Proper Clause what enforces that law? Laws do not enforce things, law enforcement enforces laws. a) Three BranchesCongress does not need to pass laws to enforce the Constitution, that is ludicrous. The way our government was designed gives the Congress power to pass laws within the enumerated powers, the Executive Branch is then supposed to enforce the law, and the Supreme Court then makes sure the actions of the Congress and the Executive Branch coincide with the Constitution. This system was set up so that they all enforce each other in a balance. Why would Congress need special powers to create law to enforce law? It doesn't. It is unnecessary. The Supreme Court, the Commander in Chief and the Department of Justice should be plenty to enforce the Constitution and should stand triumphantly over the Necessary and Proper Clause.3. Abused PowerMost regulations today are justified by the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause [2]. Since this clause was given an extremely vague wording with no guidelines, the government now uses it today to pass whatever it wants as long as it can in some way try to say it is needed when this wasn't even the written purpose of this part of the Constitution. 4. Unnecessary Given the three branch support system we have created this clause is completely unnecessary. The function was as a recital to be used to plug in enumerated powers and show how Congress should pass law not a new power giving the Congress unlimited legislative power. This clause clashes with both the 9th and 10th Amendments.9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [3] 10th - 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. [4] By giving Congress this clause to use it has given it unlimited legislative power which then takes away the Rights of the States and the People given in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Since the clause is not specific it then gives the government power to pass any law which contradicts both of these Amendments which says that any power not specifically given in the Constitution is given to the states. Since this clause is ambiguous and nonsensical it gives both the government power to pass any laws "necessary" and "proper" while simultaneously giving the states and the people the rights to resist such laws. It is a contradiction and therefore can be taken out. The government would run just fine without the Necessary and Proper Clause since the clause is vague, misused, unneeded and nonsensical. It contradicts given rights and powers already in the Constitution while serving no direct purpose and can be safely moved as being unnecessary. Thank you. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://constitution.i2i.org...[3] . http://civilliberty.about.com...[4] . http://civilliberty.about.com...