The Necessary And Proper Clause Gave Congress

In the year 1803 the case of Marbury v. Madison was brought before the Supreme Court in order to address the issue of William Marbury’s appointment as federal circuit judge. This created a unique and complex challenge for the Supreme Court of the time because they were operating under no legal precedent, which meant that they had no prior cases to reference to reach a ruling. The issue came to a head after the Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed for President John Adams to appoint sixteen new circuit judges one of them being William Marbury. However, before Secretary of State Marshall ran out of time before he was able to deliver Marbury’s appointment. When the new Secretary of State James Madison entered office, he refused to deliver Marbury’s appointment, claiming that it was too late. Outraged, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus against Madison in order to force him to complete the specified action, which in this case was to deliver the commission. However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803. One of the key issues in the case was then if William Marbury was entitled to a remedy for the deprivation of his right to his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall with a narrow and technical ruling then determined that since President Adams with his signature had completed Marbury’s commission of appointment he was entitled to the

The overall influence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall can be understood through the five main court cases over which he presided; Marbury v. Madison (1803), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The first significant case Marshall was faced with was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the last few days of his presidency, John Adams appointed members of the Federalist Party to the new offices he created within the judicial branch. When Thomas Jefferson took office he told James Madison, his secretary of state, not to deliver the unsent commissions to some of the “midnight appointments”, one of who was William Marbury. He appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for a court order that would require Madison to send out the commission, which was part of his job. The Judiciary Act of 1789 supported Marbury’s demands because it authorized the Supreme Court to order

The Necessary and Proper clause is the clause that allows congress to better do their job. It allows them to make all laws which are ruled necessary and proper to be carried into execution by the next powers. In the US constitution article 1, section VIII it states the following, “The Congress should 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.” This is what the Necessary and proper clause is. If you look at enumerated powers you see that it grants powers explicitly to congress. Implied powers are granted to congress that has assumed in order to better do its job. Reserved powers are powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government and are kept by the state. The Necessary and

The Elastic Clause is the first reason that the Constitution is still around and still used today. The Elastic Clause is a part of the Constitution that allows Congress to make new laws in order to adapt to the people and the world around them. This clause is helpful because Congress is capable of changing laws to allow them to adapt to the changing world. Congress can make

However, the state of Maryland tried to block the activity of the national bank by imposing tax to all the notes that were issued. The branch manager of the bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes and lawsuits were filed in the Maryland Court. However, the case was brought up to the U.S Supreme Court as the Constitution did not subjectively describe that Federal Government had the authority to establish a bank. The U.S Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled out the case that acknowledges that the Congress has the rights to establish a national bank under Article 1 Section 8 in the American Constitution. This shows that the US Constitution was vaguely described and gave the Congress an insight to pass laws as long as it is within the Constitution. However, this gave the Federal Government to create the mentality to indirectly gain more power which restricts the States sovereignty.

Some might think that it gives Congress the power to do whatever it wants to do, but that is not so. Congress should only use this clause to create legislation directly relating to an expressed power in the Constitution. The laws should only be what is necessary and proper. If legislation does not meet either of these requirements, it is not in Congress’s power to enact it. The necessary and proper clause, though sometimes used correctly, has often been misused. One example can be found in a court case that took place in 1896 (United States v. Gettysburg Electric Rail Co.). The case decided whether Congress had the power to condemn a railroad’s land. The necessary and proper clause, wrongly used, justified that Congress had the power to condemn that land and create a park. Congress argued that this decision fell under Congress’s expressed power to raise and equip armies. This is just one example of many. When the national bank was created many people thought that this stretched the necessary and proper clause. The necessary and proper clause had been stretched many times. The clause is sometimes called the “elastic clause” because of its

Maryland case in 1819. John Marshall led the case and it was against James McCulloch a clerk who failed to attach his state revenue stamps to his banknotes. Marshall stated the “necessary and proper” clause to sanction the powers of the federal government. Marshall proved that the federal government has power over the states therefore strengthening the government and economy. Marshall also declared that a state taxing the federal bank is unconstitutional, in turn saving the national bank and the economy. The Gibbons vs. Oden case in 1824 helped establish national supremacy in regulatory interstate commerce therefore improving the nations

The Constitution was written in order to replace the Articles of Confederation and create a centralized government. Times continue to change, and therefore laws must be altered such to keep up with those changes. This was the sole purpose of the amending process of the Constitution. The purpose of the very first amendment was to allow Congress the authority to get involved with state powers that was not allowed at first. This article, Article 1, has been very controversial and confusing at times. It has been a part of our judicial system in judgment of laws and their necessity and still affects us today.

In Marbury v. Madison, he led the Court in striking down an act of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution, legitimizing the doctrine of judicial review. Over the course of his thirty-four year term, Marshall oversaw numerous landmark cases, his decisions in which played an undeniably critical role in the early development of American law. Thanks to his firm hand and consistent principles, he was able to secure the institutional power of the Supreme Court in the face of staunch Jeffersonian opposition—affirming its place as an equal among the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is part of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Americans love the Constitution but little do they actually know about its powers. Powers, established in statements, which come along with bills from the House of Representatives, are tried by the Necessary and Proper Clause and determined Constitutional or unconstitutional.

Marshall complained that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court ultimately has the final say so when it comes to evaluating the meaning of the Constitution. Marshall states, “ lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” To present Marshall’s initial plea at hand, Marshall argues that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall 's perspective, Congress could not present the Supreme Court with the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could do so, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so.

The Necessary and Proper clause goes by many names and known for causing many disputes throughout the United States in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. What the clause states is that "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" (Document A). This means that the United States Congress possesses the abilities to create any and all laws that are essential for the Congress's power to be demonstrated. This goes for other powers stated in the constitution. However, some individuals find flaws in this clause,

When Chief Justice Marshall first established the important principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, his goal was to give the judicial branch a safeguard by expanding the Court’s power and legitimizing the weakest branch of

The establishment of one of the most influential powers of the Supreme Court--the power of judicial review-- and the development of the judicial branch can be attributed to Marshall’s insightful interpretation of the Constitution ("The Marshall Court”).

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would