Necessary and Proper clause - wikipedia Necessary and Proper clause This article is part of a series on the Constitution of the United States of America Preamble and Articles of the Constitution Preamble II III IV V VI VII Amendments to the Constitution Bill of Rights II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights History Drafting and ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism Full text of the Constitution and Amendments Preamble and Articles I -- VII Amendments I -- X Amendments XI -- XXVII Unratified Amendments United States portal U.S. Government portal Law portal Wikipedia book The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the elastic clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution that is as follows : 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. Contents 1 History leading up to ratification 2 National bank 3 Landmark decision by Chief Justice Marshall 4 Later applications 5 Name of the clause 6 See also 7 References History leading up to ratification According to the Articles of Confederation, `` each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated '' ( emphasis added ). Thus, the Continental Congress had no powers incidental to those which were `` expressly delegated '' by the Articles of Confederation. By contrast, the Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, while no other clauses in the Constitution do so by themselves. The draft Necessary and Proper Clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution 's ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in The Federalist Papers. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a `` dead letter ''. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty. National bank For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic - Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States. The first practical example of this contention came in 1791, when Hamilton used the clause to defend the constitutionality of the creation of the First Bank of the United States, the first federal bank in the new nation 's history. Concerned that monied Northern aristocrats would take advantage of the bank to exploit the South, Madison argued that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to charter a bank. Hamilton countered that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, claiming the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, not just those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers. To embarrass Madison, his contrary claims from The Federalist Papers were read aloud in Congress : No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized ; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included. Eventually, Southern opposition to the bank and to Hamilton 's plan to have the federal government assume the war debts of the states was mollified by the transfer of the nation 's capital from its temporary seat in Philadelphia to a more southerly permanent seat on the Potomac, and the bill, along with the establishment of a national mint, was passed by Congress and signed by President Washington. Landmark decision by Chief Justice Marshall This clause, as justification for the creation of a national bank, was put to the test in 1819 in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out - of - state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton 's longtime Federalist ally, wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it conferred upon Congress an implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause so that Congress could realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton 's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. Marshall wrote : We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. The court in McCulloch v. Maryland held that federal laws could be necessary without being `` absolutely necessary '', and noted that `` The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers. '' At the same time, the court retained the power of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, declaring that it had the power to strike down laws that departed from those powers : `` Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land. '' As Chief Justice Marshall put it, the Necessary and Proper Clause `` purport ( s ) to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted. '' Without this clause in the Constitution, there would have been a dispute about whether the express powers imply incidental powers, whereas this clause resolved that dispute by making the incidental powers to be expressed instead of implied. In a related case following the Civil War, the clause was employed ( in combination with other enumerated powers ) to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency. Later applications The clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws. For instance, various reforms involved in the New Deal were found to be necessary and proper enactments of the objective of regulating interstate commerce. Indeed, the influence of the Necessary and Proper Clause and its broader interpretation under McCulloch v. Maryland ( 1819 ) in American jurisprudence can be seen in cases generally thought to simply involve the Commerce Clause. In Wickard v. Filburn ( 1942 ), the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute making it a crime for a farmer to produce more wheat than was allowed under price controls and production controls, even if the excess production was for the farmer 's own personal consumption. The Necessary and Proper Clause was used to justify the regulation of production and consumption. Also, in addition to this combination of clauses being used to uphold federal laws affecting economic activity, they also were used to justify federal criminal laws. For example, Congress in the Federal Kidnapping Act ( 1932 ) made it a federal crime to transport a kidnapped person across state lines, because the transportation would be an act of interstate activity over which the Congress has power. It has also provided justification for a wide range of criminal laws relating to interference with the federal government 's rightful operation, including federal laws against assaulting or murdering federal employees. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ( 2012 ), the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can not be upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his ruling that the mandate can not `` be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act 's other reforms. Each of this Court 's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. (... ) The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is `` necessary '' to the Affordable Care Act 's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a `` proper '' means for making those reforms effective. '' According to its proponents, this ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius returns the Necessary and Proper clause to its original interpretation outlined by John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland. According to David Kopel, the clause `` simply restates the background principle that Congress can exercise powers which are merely ' incidental ' to Congress 's enumerated powers. '' Name of the clause The specific term `` Necessary and Proper Clause '' was coined in 1926 by Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court decision in Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 ( 1926 ), wherein the court upheld a law restricting medicinal use of alcohol as a necessary and proper exercise of power under the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition in the United States. This phrase has become the label of choice for this constitutional clause, and it was universally adopted by the courts, and it received Congress 's imprimatur in Title 50 of the United States Code, section 1541 ( b ) ( 1994 ), in the purpose and policy of the War Powers Resolution. See also McCulloch v. Maryland United States v. Comstock Wickard v. Filburn Federalist No. 33 Federalist No. 44 References Jump up ^ Gary P. Gershman ( 2008 ). The Legislative Branch of Federal Government : People, Process, and Politics. ABC - CLIO. pp. 28 --. ISBN 978 - 1 - 85109 - 712 - 8. ^ Jump up to : Vile, John. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 : A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America 's Founding, Volume 1, p. 591 ( ABC - CLIO 2005 ). Jump up ^ Watkins Jr., William J. ( 2004 ). Reclaiming the American Revolution. Jump up ^ Chernow, Ron ( 2004 ). Alexander Hamilton. Jump up ^ Allgor, Catherine ( 2006 ). A Perfect Union. McMillan. ^ Jump up to : `` McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 ( 1819 ) ''. Justia. Jump up ^ McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 420 ( 1819 ) quoted in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 ( 1997 ) ( Stevens, J., dissenting, joined by Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer, JJ. ). ^ Jump up to : Levy, Richard. The Power to Legislate, p. 104 ( Greenwood Publishing Group 2006 ). Jump up ^ Legal Tender Cases ( Juilliard v. Greenman ), 110 U.S. 421, 449 ( 1884 ). Jump up ^ Gardbaum, Steven ( 1996 ). `` Rethinking Constitutional Federalism ''. Jump up ^ Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 ( 1942 ) Jump up ^ `` United States v. Comstock 560 U.S. 126 ( 2010 ) ''. Justia. Jump up ^ Roberts Jr., John G. ( 28 June 2012 ). `` The Supreme Court Decision on Obama 's Health Care Law ''. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2012. Jump up ^ Kopel, David ( 28 June 2012 ). `` Major limits on the Congress 's powers, in an opinion worthy of John Marshall ''. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 1 July 2012. Jump up ^ `` US CODE : Title 50, 1541. Purpose and policy ''. Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2008 - 09 - 06. United States Constitution Articles Preamble II III IV V VI VII Amendments Ratified Bill of Rights 5 6 7 8 9 10 1795 -- 1804 11 12 Reconstruction 13 14 15 Twentieth century 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pending Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Amendment Child Labor Unsuccessful Equal Rights District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment proposals in Congress Convention to propose amendments State ratifying conventions Formation History Articles of Confederation Mount Vernon Conference Annapolis Convention Philadelphia Convention Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Connecticut Compromise Three - Fifths Compromise Committee of Detail Signing Independence Hall Syng inkstand The Federalist Papers Anti-Federalist Papers Massachusetts Compromise Virginia Ratifying Convention Hillsborough Convention Rhode Island ratification Drafting and ratification timeline Clauses Appointments Appropriations Assistance of Counsel Case or Controversy Citizenship Commerce Compact Compulsory Process Confrontation Congressional enforcement Contract Copyright and Patent Double Jeopardy Due Process Equal Protection Establishment Exceptions Excessive Bail Ex post facto Extradition Free Exercise Free Speech Fugitive Slave Full Faith and Credit General Welfare Guarantee Impeachment Import - Export Ineligibility Militia Natural - born citizen Necessary and Proper New States No Religious Test Oath or Affirmation Origination Pardon Petition Postal Presentment Presidential succession Privileges and Immunities Privileges or Immunities Recess appointment Recommendation Self - Incrimination Speech or Debate Speedy Trial State of the Union Supremacy Suspension Take Care Takings Taxing and Spending Territorial Title of Nobility Treaty Trial by Jury Vesting Vicinage War Powers List of clauses Interpretation Concurrent powers Constitutional law Criminal procedure Criminal sentencing Dormant Commerce Clause Enumerated powers Equal footing Executive privilege Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Judicial review Nondelegation doctrine Preemption Saxbe fix Separation of church and state Separation of powers Taxation power Unitary executive theory Display and legacy National Archives Charters of Freedom Rotunda Independence Mall Constitution Day Constitution Gardens National Constitution Center Scene at the Signing of the Constitution ( painting ) A More Perfect Union ( film ) USS Constitution Worldwide influence US Government Portal Law Portal Wikipedia book Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necessary_and_Proper_Clause&oldid=847252373 '' Categories : Clauses of the United States Constitution Legal history of the United States Hidden categories : All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from April 2010 Talk Contents About Wikipedia 한국어 Edit links This page was last edited on 24 June 2018, at 00 : 00 ( UTC ). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what is the basis of the necessary and proper clause
Answer: Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution