Tag: Constitution

Main Principles in the US Constitution

A sovereign nation is run by the government, judicial bodies, citizens, and most importantly, the Constitution. This is why the US Constitution lies at the heart of both America’s historical greatness and uniqueness. When the framers of the Constitution, several principles undergirded their efforts, acting as the building blocks. Among the said principles, the main ones include; federalism, separation of powers, and the checks and balances.

Read also American Constitution as an Evolutionary rather than a Revolutionary Document


The Framers of the Constitution wanted the nation and the states to operate as partners in governing. To foster the desired partnership, the Framers used federalism to structure the Constitution. Informed by the principle of federalism, they assigned certain powers to the federal government (delegated powers). They also defined the powers of the state governments (reserved powers). Lastly, they defined powers shared by the federal and state governments (concurrent powers). The shared powers bind the American people together. Notably, the main objective of employing federalism was to ensure that the powers of the national government and those of the states were clearly defined, with each having exclusive power over its sphere with little overlap (McClellan, 1997).

Read also Immigration Front, Current Event That is an Example of Federalism

Separation of Powers

            Having defined the powers, the Framers became significantly concerned that too much power might fall into the hands of a single group. As a result, to avoid the said problem, they came up with the idea of separation of powers. The principle involves the division of the basic government roles into branches. The powers were split among the three branches (legislative, executive, and legislative). The legislative branch is responsible for enacting laws and appropriating necessary funds to operate the government. As for the executive branch, it is responsible for implementing and administering laws enacted by the legislative branch. Regarding the judicial branch, it is mandated to interpret the Constitution and laws. The separation of powers principle’s goal was to ensure that no one branch is given all the power (McClellan, 1997).

Read also Landmark Cases – Separation of Powers

Checks and Balances

            The Framers deemed it necessary to have checks and balances to ensure that the three branches of the government work together fairly. The principle of checks and balances is undergirded by the ideology that power should be a check to power. Notably, although the three branches of the government are separate, they rely on each other to effectively and seamlessly perform the work of government. Thus, the main goals of the Framers when putting in place checks and balances was to reduce mistakes, prevent inappropriate behavior, and minimize the risk of centralization of power. The principle ensures that no one person or branch has absolute control over decisions and force cooperation between the three branches (McClellan, 1997).

Read also Respect for the Rule of Law – GOVT 376

            It is worth noting that the three principles relate to each other. Federalism answers the question regarding how power is to be shared. Separation of powers addresses the concern regarding how the defined power should be divided to ensure that too much power does not fall into the hands of a single group. The checks and balances principle seeks to make sure that the power is evenly distributed; thus, ensuring that the three branches of the government, although separated, work together fairly with minimal mistakes, without improper behavior, and without risking centralization of power. Together, the three principles form the foundation of the US Constitution.

Achievements of the Constitutional Convention

The US Constitution stemmed from the debate regarding the weakness in the Articles of Confederation. It is also worth noting that the Constitution is a product of a series of compromises over various issues that emerged during the Constitutional Convention. Arguably, the three most important achievements of the Constitutional Convention include creation of a restricted central government, an independent federal judiciary, and the separation of powers among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the government.

Read also Summary of Methods Used for State Constitutional Change In the USA

Creation of a restricted central government facilitated the establishment of a unified America, with a federal government that could not abuse its powers. Secondly, an independent judiciary ensured that it was just and fair in a manner that respects the rights of all citizens regardless of their background. Lastly, separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government facilitated a system of checks of balances to prevent abuse of power by either branch (McClellan, 1989). Thus, the three achievements relate to size and scope of the government, power management, and the independence of judiciary.

Read also Philadelphia May 1787 Constitutional Convention Overview

Of the three above-highlighted achievements the most important one is the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. Without this system of checks and balances of power, the nation would have eventually become either an extreme of tyranny or extreme of anarchy if power fell on the wrong hands. The separation of powers among the three branches ensures that there is a precise balance since they regulate each other in a manner that prevents abuse of power.

American Constitution as an Evolutionary rather than a Revolutionary Document

James McClellan begins Liberty, Order, and Justice with the following words: “The American Constitution is an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary document.” This paper provides an explanation of that statement and discusses the historical traditions in which the American founders grounded themselves.

History of the United States Constitution

The Founding Fathers of the United States were an alliance of forward-looking personalities who painstakingly evaluated numerous impactful elements before drafting the instituting political documents.  Nevertheless, contemporary authors such as James McClellan have contributed to this debate by offering their unique perspective on the process that ultimately birthed key documents such as the constitution. In his magnum opus dubbed Liberty, Order, and Justice, McClellan (2000) opines that the US Constitution is evolutionary in nature rather than the more commonly accepted axiom referring to it was a revolutionary document.  This paper, therefore, seeks to explore this particular viewpoint while conducting an in-depth evaluation of the historical traditions in which the Founding Fathers grounded themselves. Special focus will also be accorded to the Greco-Roman contribution to the constitution, the Mayflower Compact, important English documents such as the Magna Carta, and the Fundamental Order of Connecticut.

Read also How Argument Over Abandoning Articles Of Confederation And Adopting Constitution Contribute To Shaping First Party System Of Federalists And Republicans?

The Greco-Roman Contribution to the US-constitution

            The classical influence on the US Constitution is arguably the most overlooked datum in recent history. Yet, the fact still remains that ideas from early Roman civilizations and ancient Greek played a central role in influencing the Founding Fathers when fashioning the US Constitution. Political ideas from this particular era in history were preserved in the coming years and provided an ideal reference point during the drafting of the inaugural document in 1787 (Tushnet et al., 2015).  According to McClellan (2000), political virtues, the idea of republicanism and checks and balances were noteworthy classical perspectives which greatly influenced the Founding Fathers. Aspects of this inspiration are evident in the American political structure today in the form of a strict system of checks and balances borrowed from the Roman Republics.  In particular, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson analyzed works by Polybius, Socrates, and Aristotle to gain insight into the political thought at the time and how to incorporate it in the American context.

The Influence of English Common-Law on the US Constitution

            Initially, the drafting of the US Constitution was of the utmost importance to the Founding Fathers since they were tasked with the arduous responsibility of chartering a future for the newfangled nation.  Although the colonialists disagreed largely with the imperial tendencies espoused by the monarchy, they still appreciated certain aspects of English common law. Among the greatest influence on US Constitution was the Magna Carta (1215), especially since its “law of the land clause” mirrored the opinions of a majority of colonialists. Through it, the founding fathers were now able to create a constitution built on personal liberty and parity where the rule of law prevailed and respected by all.

Read also Melancton Smith, Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Livingston Speeches And The Ratification Of The New York Constitution

Similarly, the English Bill of Rights (1689) inspired the creation of the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the US Constitution. The May Flower Compact, as one of the initial governing documents in the English colonies, also played a central role as a foundation for the American Constitution, especially when seeking to reach a compromise between rulers and citizenry (“Constitutional Rights Foundation,” 2015). It is also credited with fostering harmony between early rulers and the masses in a fashion credited with the advances witnessed in the United States today. Additionally, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut as the embodiment of the original constitution in Continental America played a central role in influencing the structure of the US Constitution (“fundamental orders of Connecticut,” 2013). This was mainly because it offered a definite structure for a representative government such as the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Read also Federalist System that Appealed to the Founding Fathers

Development of the constitutional system: From a covenant, to a charter, to a constitutional system

            The initial idea of the constitution as a covenant was borrowed from Puritan Pilgrims. This notion had been initially enshrined in earlier documents such as the Mayflower Compact which formed the basis of governance in the New World. Soon after its implementation, it was decided that the colonies had come of age and now capable of enacting a more sophisticated document to serve their need for a constitutional system. The Charter of 1606 was soon passed as a unique strategy by the New World colonists in their quest to spread their religion as envisioned by the English Crown (Bodenhamer, 2018). However, an unanticipated consequence of its implementation was the conflict it bred between the colonialists and England as a consequence of an influx in migrants with sweeping land and property rights. This eventually culminated in the Revolutionary War which eventually birthed the constitutional system.

Read also The U.S. Constitution and Federalists and Anti-Federalists

Major Political Ideas of the Founding Fathers as a Consequence of being Rooted in this Tradition

The US Constitution is an amalgamation of ideas and historical notions gathered from a wide array of sources and combined to form one of the most influential documents yet. At the core of the vision of the original Founding Fathers was the idea that the newfangled United States would benefit greatly from a political and social experiment where governance took precedence. In this particular system, an elaborate system of checks and balances would be created to enable the citizens to check the excesses of the government in its new dispensation (Brennan, 2012, p. 45). The Founding Fathers were also keen on ensuring that citizens, from all walks of life, prospered and enjoyed liberty in their own country. These ideas were then pieced together meticulously, eventually resulting in the US Constitution which still serves the country

How Argument Over Abandoning Articles Of Confederation And Adopting Constitution Contribute To Shaping First Party System Of Federalists And Republicans?

How Did The Argument Over Abandoning The Articles Of Confederation And Adopting The Constitution Contribute To Shaping The First Party System Of Federalists And Republicans?

The debate on whether to discard the Articles of the confederation which provided for a loose confederation of sovereign states and a relatively weak federal government and the adoption of a constitution, shaped the first party system by creating divisions among political players in America. The federalists advocated for a strong central government and the adoption of a constitution and the Anti-federalists advocated for retention of the articles due to the expense that would be involved in creating a strong central government.

Read also Compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787.

The Federalists political ideology advocated for a loose reading of the constitution in order to facilitate the undertaking, by the central government, of tasks not allocated to it by the constitution, wanted trade tariffs imposed to protect American manufacturers as well as the formation of partnerships between the federal government and businesses. On the other hand, Anti-federalists wanted to retain the articles, form a small economic federal government that did not interfere with the economy and ensured the states retained their power, a strict reading and observance of the constitution as well as an opposition to trade tariffs.

Read also The U.S. Constitution and Federalists and Anti-Federalists

Due to these differing political ideologies, the Federalist party became the liberal party of the wealthy and educated members of the American society while the Republican (Anti-federalist) conservative party, became the party of the middle and lower middle class society.

The U.S. Constitution and Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The debate concerning constitutional ratification was one of the most significant in the American history. The discussion led to the emergence of Federalists and Anti-Federalists groups. While Federalists advocated for constitutional ratification to embrace a powerful national republic, Anti-Federalists were against constitution ratification in favor of the small regional government. Even though both parties differed on whether a powerful national government would destroy or preserve Americans’ liberty, today’s constitution is based upon their ideas.

Read also Federalist System that Appealed to the Founding Fathers

The Federalists advocated for a strong national government with three executive branches which provided a balance and check system to strengthen the national government. They included the executive, whose function was to oversee and implement the law, the legislature, to formulate rules, and the judicial, to interpret the law and administer justice. The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, lacked a united position on the better form of government, preferring the existing structure provided in the Articles of Confederation with a weak national government without an executive and with a single-house legislature.

Read also Antifederalist Paper Number 9 Overview And Author’s Intent

The USA Constitution reflects the Federalist plan for a stronger national government balancing power among the massive state and small states by creating two legislative houses as well as dividing power between three branches of government (Goelzhauser et al., 2019). The Constitution also reflects the judicial Federalist plan as the Supreme Court and judicial branches can declare presidential activities unconstitutional through judicial review. The president also checks the power of judicially through appointments power, which can change federal court directions.

Read also The Federal Reserve’s Role and how it Transgresses Biblical Principles

According to Federalists, the federal government has restricted power over all states since they have control within their boundaries. However, state power is restricted too as they cannot pass laws that contradict those of the federal government. On the contrary, Anti-Federalists believed that the robust national government will have unlimited power over state government and would influence sovereignty of state governments.

 Federalists and Anti-Federalists articulate their argument through cautiously reasoned essays written by the great experts in political theory of those days. Federalist wrote their essays under the collective pseudonym Publius, while Anti-Federalist papers were written by authors under pseudonyms Cato and Brutus (Henry et al., 2020). Other essays included The Columbian Patriot, Federal Farmers, and other critics of the constitution. All these essays initially appeared in the local dailies, and most were later printed in books and pamphlets.

Read also Melancton Smith, Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Livingston Speeches And The Ratification Of The New York Constitution

Based on my academic understanding of federalism, I would align myself with Federalists. The contemporary government taking the federalist plans is more advanced than the government that the Articles of Confederation established. The Anti-Federalists had no idea on the right form of government though they accepted that the Articles of Confederation had some weaknesses (Totten et al., 2020). The Anti-Federalists advocated for a weaker national government because they felt that a strong national government would behave like British tyranny.

Read also Comparing The Founding Documents and Jefferson’s Letter

The federalist accomplishments are outstanding as the party systematized the abiding administrative machinery of the central government. Moreover, it fixed the liberal practice of constitution interpretation and created a federal fiscal tradition with credit and integrity worthiness. However, the Anti-Federalists’ arguments were not in vain as they led to the establishments of the bill of rights in the constitution outlining the human rights of all citizens.

Philadelphia May 1787 Constitutional Convention Overview

Assignment Instructions

In this assignment, you will research and provide a brief overview of the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in May 1787 from the perspective of any one of the delegates that represented a colony. In addition, you will analyze the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise from the perspective of the same delegate. You will have the opportunity to review the outcome of the Constitutional Convention and research the position held by one of the delegates.

For this LASA, complete the following:

  • Research and provide a brief overview of the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in May 1787.
  • Choose and assume the position of  one of the following delegates to the convention:
    1. James Wilson, Pennsylvania
    2. Charles Pinckney, South Carolina
    3. Alexander Hamilton, New York
    4. James Madison, Virginia
  • Analyze the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise from the perspective of your assumed role as a delegate. You will observe that the issue of slavery created controversy during the creation of the US Constitution. The practice of slavery, while not specifically sanctioned within the Constitution, did, for all intents and purposes, become formally institutionalized. Be sure to address the following in your analysis:
    1. Determine the biographical information about the delegate you select, including place of birth, the colony he represented, and other background and heritage details that influenced his views.
    2. Explain the issues your chosen delegate considered important in relation to the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise.
    3. Explain from your delegate’s perspective whether each of these two compromises was necessary (required) in order to secure passage of the draft constitution (to be submitted to the states for ratification).
    4. Explain from your delegate’s perspective the importance or necessity of drafting a new Constitution and what this action would achieve nationally.
    5. Explain from your delegate’s perspective if and why the Great Compromise was necessary and why slaves were to be counted as three-fifths a human being for purposes of representation.

From the perspective of your delegate, draft a speech of 450 – 600 words including the above points, arguing for the approval of a constitution in the format of a presentation. Ensure you do the following:

  • Highlight the key points that graphically or pictorially present your position in a clear, persuasive manner.
  • Use the notes feature to fill in more detailed text of the speech.
  • Prepare your presentation from your delegate’s perspective. The presentation is meant for the members of the convention.
  • Include your voice and image within your presentation (this is optional).

Develop a 7 – 10-slide presentation in PowerPoint format, exclusive of a cover page and reference page. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.

Summary of Methods Used for State Constitutional Change In the USA

The U.S. constitution can be changed or amended using four different methods. The first method involve proposition of the amendment by states convention, followed by state conventions ratification. This method has never been used. The second method involves amendment proposition by state convention, followed by the state legislatures’ ratification. This method has also never been used. The third method involves amendment proposition by the congress, followed state conventions ratification. This method has only been used once. The fourth method is amendment proposition by the congress, followed by legislature’s ratification. This method has been used in all other cases. All 27 changes of the constitution have been approved after two-thirds of senate and house proposal ratification and send it for a vote to the senate. Then at lease the states’ three-fourth must uphold the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution And The Supreme Court Of The United States

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

An organization of balanced governance is an administration structure that gives every branch some control of the dealings of the others and requires participation in the branches. A system of balances minimizes the risks that one branch may totally assume control over the legislature or stray too far politically from alternate branches. The system of checks and balances has been a critical variable in the Constitution’s survival, guaranteeing development in government as opposed to transformation. Owing to a system of checks and balances within the government, the administrative, the executive, and the judicial branches’ powers extend beyond each other, and every branch applies some control over the others.

Sharing of power can bring about strain and prompt clash. The wording of the U.S. Constitution is vague in a few ways since numerous circumstances are not dealt with particularly. Every branch of the government has, at one point in time, endeavored to extend its power by reinterpreting these ambiguities, prompting strife over force and control of policy. In general, separation of power and the system of checks and balances has been both a wellspring of basis and a basis of a stable government and a nation as a whole.

Federalism is a political framework in which no less than two separate governments share the obligation regarding overseeing the same individuals and the same region. Fundamentally, federalism is the drawing board that can be used to separate powers at different levels of the government. (Separation of powers is the allotting of the executive (law-implementing), legislative (law-making), and the judicial (law-interpreting) powers to three distinctive branches of the national government.)

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Electoral College


  1. The aversion of triumph exclusively in light of urban areas

Individuals, who are agreeable to the Electoral College, claim that the present system maintains a strategic distance from a candidate from winning through exclusively concentrating on territories that are vigorously populated. The candidate ought to take a more broad methodology.

  1. Help with the upkeep of government character in the country.

This system gives every state the free will to plan its individual laws concerning voting. What’s more, it likewise gives each of them the ability to make changes.

  1. Keep up a division of forces

The Constitution has been intended to divide government into three diverse branches that are designed to offer “balances and checks” along with consideration. Some people have contended that when the President is directly chosen, he/she can undermine alternate branches of the government by declaring a national public mandate. Also, it might presumably prompt to tyranny.

  1. Two-Party Systems

Many individuals consider the negative impact of the Electoral College on 3rd parties as a smart thought. It keeps up the present two party systems in offering the nation with firm solidness.

  1. Minority Groups

Certain defenders have contended that the interest groups and minority groups might have a gigantic effect in impacting votes due to the winner taking all systems inside of the states.


  1. States in greater “swing” get the larger part of the consideration.

In numerous states, the candidate with the majority of the casted votes gets all the electoral votes of the state. A couple of states hold the historical backdrop of balloting reliably the Democrat or the Republican. Candidates may give careful consideration to the states that have more deliberation and clear top choices to huge states without clear top choice.

  1. Demoralize voter turnout.

While the candidate who has the most noteworthy normal vote in each state gains all the electoral votes inside of the states with clear favorites (republican or democrat), voters will more often than not feel that their votes produce no results. The system of Electoral College does not spur competitors from battling for the turnout of the voters, aside from in huge “swing states”.

  1. Favoring the smaller and less populated states

The arrangement of the Electoral College offers power to the little, less populated states, which is unjustifiable with the bigger states. It enhances that little states’ appointive quality. Customarily, it hosts special the Republican Party.

How the Supreme Court determines which cases to hear, which cases not to take, and why

The Supreme Court in the United States decides to adjudicate a case depending on at least four of the nine Justices that adjudicates in the Supreme Court accepting to award the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices accept to assign the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted, in very few selected cases that can number up to fewer than 100 in a year, by the Supreme Court of the United States.

A petition for Writ Certiorari is a request that the court hears the case of the two parties in dispute. The Supreme Court collects over 5000 writs of Certiorari every year. Each warrant and the case it comes from is put under review by the Supreme Court clerks and then shortened into a cert. memo. The cert. the memo is what the Supreme Court judges use to decide in the case. After auditing the memo, the particular judge that the case was allocated to will either deny the appeal himself or confirm the claims court judgment or will bring the cert. memo before alternate judges and a discussion is held on whether the case ought to be adjudicated. All together for the case to be decided, four judges must consent to hear the case; this procedure is called the Rule of Four. On the off chance that four justices vote to hear the case, then it is put on the court’s docket and the involved parties, and their lawyers are informed that the Supreme Court consents to listen to the case.


The court will typically give the petitions of cases that are outstandingly interesting and that present an issue of law that would be considered influential all through the United States. The Supreme Court additionally inclines toward cases that are clear illustrations for the lower court so that correct direction can be given.

An example of a recent Supreme Court hearing is the Lockhart v. the United States case. The case has managed to reach this far because of its sensitive nature. The government can choose to make the case to be listened to on such a level so that it influences vigilance where necessary. The Supreme Court wanted to listen to the case because of the prior convictions for sexual abuse increasing mandatory minimums for child pornography.

Compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787.

Assignment Instructions

Compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles vis-à-vis the Constitution? Give specific instances that demonstrate the weakness of the Articles

As depression struck the new nation in the mid-1780s, new questions arose about the nature of American democracy. Many conservatives believed that the answer lay in a stronger national government. Most radicals believed it was up to the states to relieve the financial burden of the people. These sentiments fostered a movement for a new constitution. Political differences soon stimulated the creation of political parties.

Read also Melancton Smith, Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Livingston Speeches And The Ratification Of The New York Constitution

Give specific instances that demonstrate the weakness of the Articles (such as the Western problem).
Then analyze the drafting of the Constitution, using specific details to show how the various states (slave vs. free, east vs. west) compromised in order to effectively draft a constitution. Pay particular attention to Roger Sherman’s plan, the Great Compromise, which broke a stalemate that could have been fatal to the development of the new Constitution. Finally, compare and contrast the debate over ratification between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Make sure you cite specific examples from the Federalist

Read also Comparison Paper – Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Thomas Jefferson’s Letter

Papers to support the Federalist position and contrast it with leading proponents of the opposition (such as John Hancock). Analyze how the debate over a bill of rights illustrates the differences between the two parties. Evaluate the relative success of the Bill of Rights in achieving an effective balance between national and states’ interests.
This paper must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including the References page) and utilize no less than four academic quality sources. Margins should be no more than one inch (right and left) and the essay should be composed in an appropriate font and size. Sources must be documented and cited using APA

Order a unique answer to this assignment written by our professional writers at an affordable price. 

The Necessary and Proper Clause – United States Constitution

This paper gives the meaning of the clause “Necessary and Proper”, and elaborates on the consequences of the ruling in 1790 by Chief Justice Marshall that still affects people to date. The U. S Congress has its specific duties and powers numbered in various areas within the constitution. The clause “Necessary and Proper” is listed among the most significant powers and it is found in Section 8 of Article 1 which, in 17 paragraphs, identifies the many essential powers that Congress has (Lawson & Miller, 2013). The meaning of “Necessary and Proper Clause” is that it gives powers to the Congress to enact all laws necessary and proper with regards to executing the preceding powers and all other powers authorized by the US Constitution. This means that the US Constitution enables the government to exercise certain powers called the enumerated powers. It is worth noting that considerations were given to various resolutions during constitutional convention regarding the enumeration of various powers. These deliberations were essential in order for the constitution to outline the kinds of powers that the government can execute. Therefore, the “Necessary and Proper Clause” was drafted for the purposes of establishing an example that laws can be made by Congress to execute authority given by the Constitution to the central government (Lawson & Miller, 2013).

Read also Example of a Violation of the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act)

The clause “Necessary and Proper” enables the government to execute some essential programs; for instance, to organize and facilitate the judiciary branch. At the time when the central government of the United States was being formed, the significance of this clause was realized when it granted authority for the establishment and organization of the government (Paulsen & Paulsen, 2015). The significance of the clause can still be realized to-date because of the way it gives description of the government’s justification of authorities given under the Constitution that has had controversies in respect to interpretation. Over the years, different interpretations have been made to the clause, especially by different forces in politics and judiciary. For instance, Alexander Hamilton (secretary of the treasury) and Thomas Jefferson (secretary of state) engaged in a long debate regarding the correct interpretation of the clause “Necessary and Proper”. Jefferson proposed that too much power should be vested in one of the branches of government arguing that the term “necessary” was an adjective that was restrictive in such a way to mean essential (Lawson & Miller, 2013). Through his interpretation, he meant to give strength to the rights of states. On the other hand, Hamilton argued for the clause to be interpreted in an expansive manner. His idea was to authorize Congress to have a wide range of indirect powers. According to Lawson and Miller (2013), Hamilton’s interpretation was favored by George Washington and James Madison because of its flexibility, which subsequently led to nurturing the establishment of a powerful central government.

Apparently the Necessary and Proper Clause is the most powerful clause in the Constitution of the U.S. and it was crafted to enable Congress to have the authority to organize judiciary, and facilitate the general organization of government. Basing on the principle of the Necessary and Proper Clause, Hamilton (secretary) of treasury urged Congress in the year 1790 start a private banking cooperation that could facilitate collection of tax in order to promote interstate trade, support the army, and respond to the government’s own needs of borrowing (Barden, 2011). The Supreme Court under the leadership of John Marshall confirmed that the necessary and proper clause was an indispensable strategy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (Barden, 2011). The Chief Justice wrote to the court upholding the US’ second bank employing the same principle that Wilson and Hamilton utilized. Marshal indicated that the federal government had the authority to establish a federal bank. He, also, indicated that the federal government could not be taxed by the states. Therefore, always, the federal government should have the power over the states. Abraham Lincoln provided a reliable example of the US presidents who have exercised their power in respect to the Necessary and Proper Clause. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a measure that escaped any form of detailed scrutiny even after provoking many controversies (McGinty, 2011). The clause allows the federal government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without question, especially if the safety of the public needs it during times of invasion or rebellion.In conclusion, the U. S Congress has its specific duties and powers numbered in various areas within the constitution. The meaning of “Necessary and Proper Clause” is that it gives powers to the Congress to enact all laws necessary and proper with regards to executing the preceding powers and all other powers authorized by the US Constitution. The significance of the clause can still be realized to-date because of the way it gives description of the government’s justification of authorities given under the Constitution that has had controversies in respect to interpretation. The Supreme Court under the leadership of John Marshall confirmed that the necessary and proper clause was an indispensable strategy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)