Necessary and Proper clause Final paper

Necessary and Proper Clause Final paper 


 Outline Necessary and Proper Clause

I. Thesis & Introduction

A. Statement: The necessary and proper clause gives power to people in Congress to make federal laws, although they should be within the constitutional allowance.

B.  Overview/Background: The Necessary and Proper clause is found in article 1, section 8, and clause 18 of the Constitution. It was developed to empower the Congress members to make laws despite their absence in the Constitution, provided they did not violate human rights. Various cases such as McCulloch V. Maryland upheld the Necessary and Proper clause (Ray, 2018).

1. Details of Subpoint: The clause is advantageous since it aids Congress members to pass laws without consulting the involved departments since they are meant to improve the well-being of all people in Congress.

2. More details of the Subpoint: The clause also allowed the execution of powers only allowed in the Constitution. Therefore, the power was limited, and thus Congress members could not make laws that violated the rights of the people.

II. Main Point: The members of Congress had both incidental and instrumental powers.

A.    Summary

Joseph’s commentaries on the constitutionality power provide that the congress team will have both the incidental and instrumental powers provided in the Constitution. The clause does not provide additional power to the congress members; hence they maintain the power vested to them by the Constitution. Questions arise when the powers are not granted in the Constitution, and thus, the members act as directed by the law (Magnetti, 2019 ).

B.  Subpoint: The powers of Congress members must be congruent with the constitutional provisions.

1. Details of Subpoint: Some of the laws passed by Congress members may violate individual constitutional rights.

2. More details of the Subpoint: if the passed law violates the constitutional provisions, then the Congress members have to get rid of them in a bid to uphold human rights.

III. Main Point

Summary of one Supreme Court case that addresses your clause.  

The court case that addresses the Necessary and Proper clause was McCulloch V. Maryland in 1819. The case ruled that the Congress members had explicit power to develop a taxation clause despite its absence in the Constitution. The case was whether the Congress members had the authority to establish a bank and whether the move was unconstitutional.

1. Details of Subpoint: The court ruled favor Congress members.

2. More details of the Subpoint: The members have the authority to formulate laws provided they are necessary.

B.  Subpoint: Congress members may make laws not provided in the Constitution.

1. Details of Subpoint: The laws should benefit all people and should not be discriminatory.

2. More details of the Subpoint: In the cases where laws are discriminatory, the Congress members may be deterred from implementing them.

 IV. Main Point: According to (Primus & Hills, 2021), the United States constitution gives powers to the Congress team to participate in the activities that benefit United States Citizens

1. Details of Subpoint: Apart from the financial laws, the Congress team is expected to formulate laws as the need arises. The fundamental facts were not incorporated in the Declaration of independence, including another clause (Mikhail, 2019). The clause provides the Congress members with authority to establish laws that they find beneficial to their people, enhancing their operations.

2. More details of the Subpoint: This improves the well-being of Congress members and the people in the United States.

B.  Subpoint: Many people confuse the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution while the two are unrelated (Strang, 2019).

1. Details of Subpoint: Declaration of independence is an interpretive clause and thus unites all people in the United States. It is considered a sign of unity. The Constitution provides laws that people should adhere to, including the Necessary and Proper clause. The Congress members should, however, exercise it within the recommended powers (Hammer, 2021).  

2. More details of the Subpoint: The clause was developed to incorporate the fundamental facts. Not all the laws were included in the Constitution, and thus, more were likely to arise with time. Thus, there was a need for provision whereby Congress members could formulate what was considered good for the people.

V. Conclusion & Future Research

A. Closing: In summary, the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress members powers to make laws that could benefit the people while upholding their constitutional rights.

1. Clear and concise summation of how student’s research supports thesis: The Necessary and Proper Clause is supported by various cases. In most of them, the court ruled in favor of the members of Congres’s actions.

2. More details of the Subpoint: The court case and literature support the clause. The Declaration of independence does not incorporate the clause since it is a sign of unity and not the laws guarding the country.

B. Future Research: The recommended future research is on the impact of the Necessary and Proper clause on the current policies in the United States. 

1. Brief discussion of possible future research on the topic: Despite the role of the Necessary and Proper clause in shaping the United States, less has been done on its impact on current policies, thus the need for further research.  

2. More details of the Subpoint: The laws imposed by Congress members should be coherent with the Constitution, thus impacting current policies.





Hammer, J. (2021). Common good originalism: Our tradition and our path forward. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 44(3), 917-959. Retrieved from

    Magnetti, S. (2019). The "rational federalist": Synthesizing necessity and propriety in the sweeping clause. St.John’s Law Review, 93(1), 141-176. Retrieved from

Mikhail, J. (2019). A Tale of Two Sweeping Clauses. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y42, 29.

Primus, R., & Hills, M. (2021). Suspect spheres, not enumerated powers: A guide for leaving the lamppost. Michigan Law Review, 119(7), 1431-1502. Retrieved from

Ray, C. (2018). John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, and the concept of constitutional sovereignty. Perspectives on Political Science47(2), 65-77.

Strang, L. J. (2019). The Declaration of Independence: No Special Role in Constitutional Interpretation. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y42, 43.