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

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

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