Elastic Clause Argumentative Essay

It isn't an argument; the United States Constitution is a living document. A living document is one that’s continuously interpreted in different ways to benefit society. The stretching of the Elastic Clause gives Congress more power to create new laws that weren’t necessarily discussed in 1787. The installation of the Judicial Review doctrine only a few decades after it was ratified without any additions to the wording is also proof. Finally, the analysis of the separation of power that became Executive Privilege is a third example of the United States Constitution being interpreted in different ways, thus making it a living document. If the Constitution were dead and had never been interpreted, our country wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to

They can stretch and interpret the need for laws. Also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, it’s located in article 1, section 8, and clause 18. “Loose Constructionists interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause as expanding the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers.” By “expanding the authority” and “all areas tangentially” the writer means that Congress has the power to stretch the meaning of the Constitution. Congress has the power to reach into any area of law that is slightly “related to one of its enumerated powers”. To interpreters, the clause grants the Congress every power that is implied but not explicitly stated. Congressman Alex Hamilton first used the Necessary and Proper clause to defend the establishment of The First Bank of the United States in 1791. In McCulloch vs. Maryland, in 1819, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Maryland was subordinate to the Federal government and concurred with Congress that the Necessary and Proper clause enabled congress to act as long as it wasn’t forbidden by the Constitution. Although Congress wasn't given the power to establish anything related to a National Bank, it stretched the Elastic Clause to incorporate it. The Constitution created a balanced government that would thrive to become a strong central government, as time demanded the elastic clause to be interpreted in a different

Judicial Review is the principle that the Judicial Branch has the right to review the constitutionality of the legislative and executive branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803) Chief Justice at the time, John Marshall, said this when expressing the court's opinion in the Marbury vs. Madison case. The use of “duty” is important because it shows an obligation and responsibility for the Judicial Branch to have Judicial Review. Before the Constitution was ratified, the founding fathers supported Judicial Review. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist paper No. 78, had said, “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature… to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.” He also added “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” On top of that, thirteen delegates at the Constitutional Convention supported the idea of Judicial Review. Judicial review, although never written in the Constitution, was instituted when the Judicial Branch needed it to perform its basic functions supported by the founding fathers of the United