Welcome back to Mia Civic Center. We are getting closer to the big night. Our congressional
contenders have two unique punches under the glove. I'm sure you want to know the ins,
the outs. But are these punches within the match's strict regulations, or are they too loose?
Tonight, we are going to investigate the use of these congressional powers and unravel just what
it means. By the end of the lesson, you should be able to identify the two main interpretations of
congressional power, explain a strict and loose interpretation of the General Welfare Clause,
and explain a strict and loose interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Come along!
Last night at Mia Civic Center, we learned that Congress was considered most important
by the framers. These guys are the prized fighters in our Friday night federalism fight.
Still not convinced? Okay. Let me just remind you.
The expressed powers granted to Congress are found in article I, section 8 Clauses 1 through 18 in
the U.S. Constitution. That's right. There are 18 of them, but a few of them are so incredibly
vague, that maybe, just maybe, there are endless powers. Ladies and gentlemen,
join me for an inside exclusive on the power of the General Welfare and Necessary Proper Clauses.
Particular phrases in the Constitution leave a lot of room for interpretation. What does it
mean to provide for general welfare? What does it mean to do things that are necessary and proper?
Somehow, the nation has to decide what defines these powers. These particular phrases create
differences in interpretation. Out of these differences emerged two separate corners, two
groups of fighters poised to take the balance of power and the nature of federalism in their hands.
In one corner, you have those people who say they hold a strict interpretation of the Constitution,
originally held by the anti-federalists. A strict view claims that the framers intended
us to read the Constitution with a limited interpretation. They believe that the true
meaning of these phrases are found directly within the wording of the phrases themselves,
or in other parts of the Constitution. The goal of this perspective is to limit the role of the
federal government and empower state governments to lead the way. In the other corner, there are
folks who take a loose interpretation of the Constitution, originally held by the federalists.
A loose view claims that there are implied intentions within the murky lines of text,
meaning that it is not directly stated, but nevertheless was intended. They argue that
the wording is left vague on purpose, so that Congress has wiggle room to create good laws as
society changes. According to these folks, the framers understood that they could not imagine
all the changes the future might bring. Hey, let's stop for a minute to show what you know.
Grab your pencil and notebook! What are the two basic camps or interpretations of constitutional
phrases? What does each side believe? Pause the video and jot some responses down.
The General Welfare Clause is worded like this.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
A strict interpretation takes issue with the phrase general welfare. To limit the phrase's
potential for limitless power grabbing, they said this should be read in a limited way and should
be explained by the particular clauses subjoined to the clause containing them. In other words,
the expressed powers written around the clause, such as the power to coin money, define the
general welfare. It is not open for additions. On the other hand, a loose interpretation would say
the wording is left ambiguous in order to equip Congress with the ability to properly take care
of the nation as time goes on. Remember, this clause is about the power to tax and spend, and
according to a loose view, spending was limited by the clause itself with the words public debts,
common defense, and general welfare. But still, they saw the phrase general welfare
as an intentionally vague phrase. They saw this phrase as key to the expansive powers and scope
that the framers intended for Congress to have. Why else would it be so vague? I mean,
they did take a lot of time to write this thing, and it was kind of an important document, so...
Let's pause again to make sure you generally get the idea,
with a show what you know! You know what to do. Grab your pencils, and let's
do this! How does a strict interpretation limit the power of the General Welfare Clause?
Why does a loose interpretation think general welfare was written intentionally vague?
Let's hop over to the other clause that had the framers talking. That's the Necessary and Proper
Clause. This clause states that Congress has the 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 any department or officer thereof."
James Wilson, the author of the clause, felt the Necessary and Proper Clause was meant to create
implied powers, or powers not expressly written in the Constitution. However,
a strict interpretation of this clause points to the phrase, "into execution the foregoing
powers," meaning the other expressed powers as a clear limitation to the clause's scope. According
to this view, the Necessary and Proper Clause was not supposed to be completely open-ended.
But what's the big deal, anyways? Now, the strict interpreters said that this clause had
the potential to be an extremely dangerous clause in the Constitution, and believed it had to be
limited by the other expressed powers. They argued that this clause combined with another clause, the
Supremacy Clause, could ultimately negate Article IV of the Constitution, which requires the federal
government to guarantee each state a republican government. This combination could create broad,
undefined legislative power, and make the federal government a superior government.
On the other hand, a loose interpretation felt that the clause's open-endedness was very flexible
and constituted a power in and of itself. What was indeed necessary and proper was to be determined
by that particular session of Congress, in response to demands of society at the time.
Congress needed powers that could be flexible enough to provide for an ever-changing world.
Before we wrap this up, can you show us what you know?
According to a strict view, why is the Necessary and Proper Clause dangerous?
According to a strict view, what limits the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause? According
to a loose view, why is the Necessary and Proper Clause a power unto itself?
Recap! Today, we learned that a strict and loose interpretive lens for viewing the Constitution
emerged during ratification, and those views still dominate constitutional debates up until this day.
We also learned that the General Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause
are two key congressional powers that have centered the debate over legislative power.
So the question is this. Does the Constitution clearly define these phrases, or should it be
left for Congress to decide? In the next lesson, we will find out. And that's it for us today! I
hope you all have a great rest of your day, and as always, remember to vote, debate, and participate!