Necessary and Proper Clause Concept Application FRQ
CONGRESS CONCEPT APPLICATION FRQ There is a reason the necessary and proper clause has been dubbed the elastic clause. This constitutional provision has allowed the Congress and subsequently the government of the United States to expand far beyond what the Founders had envisioned. These implied powers allow Congress to fulfill their enumerated powers. They were never intended to write a blank check for Congress to do whatever it wants. In all fairness, however, the Founders never could have imagined what our world would be like today. It was for this reason they wrote into law a provision that would allow the Constitution to be a living letter. Some argue it lives too gregariously. It is necessary and proper for “we the people” to decide whether or not the Congress abuses its authority.
Question 1
Short answer
Referencing the scenario, describe the intent of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause.
Question 2
Short answer
In the context of this scenario, explain an action of Congress that exemplifies the intent described in part A.
Question 3
Short answer
Explain which of our two primary political parties would advocate for a broader use of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause.
Teach with AI superpowers
Why teachers love Class Companion
Import assignments to get started in no time.
Create your own rubric to customize the AI feedback to your liking.
Overrule the AI feedback if a student disputes.
Other U.S. Government & Politics Assignments
10.1 FRQ10.2 FRQ10.3 FRQ11.1 FRQ11.2 FRQ11.3 FRQ12/12 - Campaign Finance12.1 FRQ12.2 FRQ12.3 FRQ12.4 FRQ1.2 FRQ13.1 FRQ13.2 FRQ13.3 FRQ13.4 FRQ13.5 FRQ1.3 FRQ14.1 FRQ14.2 FRQ14.3 FRQ14.4 FRQ1.4 Challenges of the Articles of Confederation | Shays' Rebellion1.4 FRQ14th Amendment FRQ15.1 FRQ15.2 FRQ15.3 FRQ16.1 FRQ16.2 FRQ16.3 FRQ1st Amendment and Supreme Court Decisions2.15 Policy and Branches of Government 2.1 FRQ(2.2) Comprehensive FRQ: People's Pie - Budget Process 2.2 FRQ2.2 FRQ(2.3) SCOTUS FRQ: Baker v. Carr (1962) and Bush v. Gore (2000)(2.3) SCOTUS FRQ: Baker v. Carr & Shaw v. Reno(2.9) Federalist No. 783.1.8 Aspire to Do: FRQ #43.2 FRQ3.4 FRQ3rd Party Barriers4.1 American Attitudes About Government and Politics4.1 FRQ4.2 FRQ4.3 FRQ4.4 FRQ4.5 Concept Application