Elastic Clause Essay

Throughout American history, the federal government has consistently found new ways to strengthen its powers while limiting the states’ influences. Due to circumstantial reasons under intense situations, America’s national government has gradually expanded its power over time, claiming to do what it sees best for all of the United States citizens. Following the constitution, the federal government continues to use certain clauses within the document to its advantage, further expanding its role in Americans’ daily lives.
One of the significant provisions that Congress uses to gain more power over the years is the Elastic Clause, also referred to as the “necessary and proper” clause. This part of the constitution provides the government with

the notion of implied powers, allowing it to create certain laws that correlate with the expressed powers stated earlier in the document. As years passed, the federal government’s interpretation of this clause significantly altered from referring to it when absolutely necessary to using it mostly for convenience. It noticeably began as early as 1819 in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland when the Supreme Court ruled the right for the government to create a national bank. Congress deemed it essential to form a national bank, claiming it constitutional due to the expressed powers of regulating money for the public interest (Legal Information Institute). Because the state of Maryland could not impose a tax on the national bank as they did with their state banks, this debate diminished a major portion of the state’s rights. After this ruling, more power shifted to the federal government, providing the states with less authority to manage their own finances.
Similarly, almost two centuries later, the Supreme Court decided that the Obama Health Care Act was indeed constitutional due to the right of the federal government to supervise exchanges between the states.

While originally basing this case off the Commerce Clause, the widely controversial act passed largely due to the necessary and proper clause; the government asserted that the distinctive aspects of the health act, such as eliminating insurance companies’ discrimination, was essential in benefiting all Americans (Sack, 2010). Not only did approving this policy affect the states, but it also notably affected the states’ individual citizens by forcing everyone to possess health insurance or pay a costly fine. By favoring the national government in this situation, it can be argued that the freedom of choice of containing health insurance has been ripped away from each individual, increasingly lowering the states’ rights to assist as well. However, a fair amount of government officials would continue to argue that the clause “does not change the powers granted to Congress, [instead] only makes the expressed powers more clear” (“A Declaratory

Truth”).
Interestingly enough, the Elastic Clause is closely related to the the Commerce Clause as “the necessary-and-proper clause is always lurking in these commerce clause cases,” contributing a valid reason to a constitutional decision (Sack, 2012).

The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate imports and exports with foreign countries as well as regulating trade throughout the states. Over time, this clause has increasingly been used to administer further power to the federal government. In 1942 with the case of Wickard v. Filburn, several Americans felt that it was a stretch for Congress to use this part of the constitution as a fair justification. Roscoe Filburn was penalized for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 by exceeding the wheat growth limits. Filburn responded that the act did not apply to him since he was not intending to sell his production of wheat, but only intended to use it for his animals. Despite his defense, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Congress, declaring that Filburn’s overproduction of wheat adds up with similar farmers’ situations, indirectly affecting the marketplace (Legal Information Institute). The federal government dramatically extended its power with the result of this case, newly possessing the ability to control what citizens produce even for their own

benefit.
In addition, one of the most recent and most controversial cases in America continued to extremely subsidize states’ rights. In the case of Gonzales v. Raich during 2005, the federal government was granted with the ability to declare the use of marijuana that is homegrown illegal despite the approval of the states. Along with the justification of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, the government also called upon the Commerce Clause to eliminate the horticulture and usage of cannabis plants, which became supreme compared to the law of California (Legal Information Institute). The controversy derives from a variety of citizens’ opinions that the government is not actually regulating interstate trade as they would claim. Instead, several residents feel that the national government is only robbing them of their free will, especially since this type of choice would only cause them to hurt themselves. This case also undermines the states’ laws, taking another authoritative action from each state’s government by not allowing them with the ability to consider this decision themselves.
Furthermore, cases of the federal government overpowering the states’ original discretions can be seen repeated from the start of the formation of America to modern time. However, the Supreme Court still rules in favor of the states at times. More specifically, when the Texan government created a lawsuit against the federal government in 2013, the state of Texas eventually won. Due to attempting to repopulate and save the Red Snapper fish species, the federal government decided to significantly shorten it, only allowing it to be twelve to seventeen days. As well as modifying the length of the season, the federal government also attempted to limit the number of fish that could be caught throughout that week. Outraged by this imposed change, the Texas and Louisiana governments moved forward in filing a lawsuit; their argument was that multiple of both states’ citizens rely on the Red Snapper fishing season for their income in order to support their families. Fighting against the National Marines Fisheries Service, the United States Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and numerous other federal agencies, the simple, yet profound case went to the Supreme Court.
Texas ended the case in victory as the Supreme Court ruled in the state’s favor due to the lack of emergency that the federal government claimed and the opinion that such a simple conflict should remain in the states’ management. While this case was not deemed urgent, it was significant because it represented a scenario when the states overrule the federal government. This case displayed the importance of the states continuing to be able to form their own regulations on certain matters, which could eventually lead to the states involvement in larger decisions.
Because of the duplicated conflicts between the United States and foreign nations, the federal government has drastically increased its power as its citizens allow it due to the certain benefits they receive during the change. During periods of war, citizens and the state governments become more willing to slightly spare their personal freedoms for greater protection, or national governmental services. Especially since the Great Depression, individual state governments began to affect American residents’ daily lives less as the national government gradually began to affect their daily lives more.