query: what early national dispute was settled on the basis of the necessary and proper clause

pos: McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that established that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal U.S. government certain implied powers that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the

pos: Enumerated powers (United States) courts to determine what means are "necessary and proper" in executing one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; depending on the interpretation, it can be "stretched" to expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract", limiting Congress. In practical usage, the clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws. The defining example of the Necessary and Proper Clause in U.S. history was "McCulloch v. Maryland" in 1819. The

pos: Necessary and Proper Clause otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective." According to its proponents, this ruling in "NFIB v. Sebelius" returns the Necessary and Proper clause to its original interpretation outlined by John Marshall in "McCulloch v. Maryland". According to David Kopel, the clause "simply restates the background principle that Congress can exercise powers which are merely 'incidental' to Congress's enumerated powers." The specific term "Necessary and Proper Clause" was coined in 1926 by Associate

pos: Necessary and Proper Clause and its broader interpretation under "McCulloch v. Maryland" (1819) in American jurisprudence can be seen in cases generally thought to simply involve the Commerce Clause. In "Wickard v. Filburn" (1942), the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute making it a crime for a farmer to produce more wheat than was allowed under price controls and production controls, even if the excess production was for the farmer's own personal consumption. The Necessary and Proper Clause was used to justify the regulation of production and consumption. Also, in addition to this combination of clauses being used to uphold federal laws affecting economic

pos: Necessary and Proper Clause to have the federal government assume the war debts of the states was mollified by the transfer of the nation's capital from its temporary seat in Philadelphia to a more southerly permanent seat on the Potomac, and the bill, along with the establishment of a national mint, was passed by Congress and signed by President Washington. This clause, as justification for the creation of a national bank, was put to the test in 1819 in the case of "McCulloch v. Maryland", wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States

pos: Necessary and Proper Clause powers was constitutional. Marshall wrote: The court in "McCulloch v. Maryland" held that federal laws could be necessary without being "absolutely necessary", and noted that "The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers." At the same time, the court retained the power of judicial review established in "Marbury v. Madison", declaring that it had the power to strike down laws that departed from those powers: "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass

pos: Presidency of James Monroe resentment towards the national bank motivated the state of Maryland to implement a tax on the national bank's branch in that state. Shortly afterwards, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of "McCulloch v. Maryland." In a major defeat for states' rights advocates, the Supreme Court forbid states from taxing B.U.S. branches. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall articulated a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause, holding that the Constitution granted Congress powers that were not expressly defined. The decision fed the popular disdain for the B.U.S. and aroused fears about the growing

pos: Federalism including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives the federal government the "implied power" to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers—the "reserved powers"—are reserved to the people or the states. The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments—as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally

pos: United States v. Kebodeaux and proper to the execution of that power citing "Gonzales v. Raich". Scalia stated that the Opinion did not declare that the Wetterling Act, on which they based their application to Kebodeaux, was necessary and proper, or that SORNA was designed to execute the preceding act. Justice Thomas wrote the main dissent. He argued that SORNA was an unconstitutional usurpation of State police power. This was because SORNA failed the legitimate use test Chief Justice John Marshall set forth in "McCulloch v. Maryland". Additionally, since Kebodeaux had completed his sentence, he was exempt from coverage under the Military Regulation Clause.

pos: Alexander Hamilton national bank. Hamilton justified the creation of this bank, and other increased federal powers, under Congress's constitutional powers to issue currency, to regulate interstate commerce, and to do anything else that would be "necessary and proper" to enact the provisions of the Constitution. Jefferson, on the other hand, took a stricter view of the Constitution: parsing the text carefully, he found no specific authorization for a national bank. This controversy was eventually settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in "McCulloch v. Maryland", which in essence adopted Hamilton's view, granting the federal government broad freedom to select the

pos: Implied powers it was impossible to define all the means it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the Constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed the bank bill into law. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the United States Supreme Court case, "McCulloch v. Maryland". In 1816, the United States Congress passed legislation creating the Second Bank of the United States. The state of Maryland attempted

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause powers, whereas this clause resolved that dispute by making the incidental powers to be expressed instead of implied. In a related case following the Civil War, the clause was employed (in combination with other enumerated powers) to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency. The clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws. For instance, various reforms involved in the New Deal were found to be necessary and proper enactments of the objective of regulating interstate commerce. Indeed, the influence of the Necessary and Proper Clause

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted [sic] to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land." As Chief Justice Marshall put it, the Necessary and Proper Clause "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted." Without this clause in the Constitution, there would have been a dispute about whether the express powers imply incidental

neg: Choice of law clause Choice of law clause A choice of law clause or proper law clause is a term of a contract in which the parties specify that any dispute arising under the contract shall be determined in accordance with the law of a particular jurisdiction. As business transactions and contractual obligations may cross jurisdictional borders within a nation, as well as international borders, both physically and electronically, choice of law issues may arise in the event that it is necessary to interpret the terms of a contract or in the event of litigation over a contract dispute. As laws vary between jurisdictions,

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause Necessary and Proper Clause The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the elastic clause, is a clause in of the United States Constitution that is as follows: According to the Articles of Confederation, "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation "expressly" delegated" (emphasis added). Thus, the Continental Congress had no powers incidental to those which were "expressly delegated" by the Articles of Confederation. By contrast, the Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, while no other clauses in the Constitution do so by

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause Affordable Care Act cannot be upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his ruling that the mandate cannot "be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Each of this Court's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. [...] The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would

neg: Alexander Hamilton eventually passed in an overwhelming fashion 39 to 20, on February 8, 1791. Washington hesitated to sign the bill, as he received suggestions from Attorney-General Edmund Randolph and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson dismissed the 'necessary and proper' clause as reasoning for the creation of a national bank, stating that the enumerated powers "can all be carried into execution without a bank." Along with Randolph and Jefferson's objections, Washington's involvement in the movement of the capital from Philadelphia is also thought to be a reason for his hesitation. In response to the objection of the 'necessary and proper' clause, Hamilton stated that

neg: Article Two of the United States Constitution he alone is the "judge" of what is "necessary and expedient." Unlike the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, which limits Congress's discretion to carrying out only its delegated powers, the phrase "necessary and expedient" implies a wider range of discretion for the President. Because this is a political question, there has been little judicial involvement with the President's actions under the clause as long as Presidents have not tried to extend their legislative powers. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court noted that the Recommendations Clause serves as a reminder that the President

neg: McCulloch v. Maryland it is a "constitution" we are expounding." Fourthly, Marshall supported his opinion textually by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective while it exercised its enumerated powers as long as that objective is not forbidden by the Constitution. In liberally interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Court rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation of the clause that the word "necessary" in the clause meant that Congress could pass only laws that were absolutely essential in the execution of its enumerated powers. The Court rejected that argument, on the grounds that many of the enumerated powers

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause Justice Louis Brandeis, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court decision in "Lambert v. Yellowley," 272 U.S. 581 (1926), wherein the court upheld a law restricting medicinal use of alcohol as a necessary and proper exercise of power under the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition in the United States. This phrase has become the label of choice for this constitutional clause, and it was universally adopted by the courts, and it received Congress's imprimatur in Title 50 of the United States Code, section 1541(b) (1994), in the purpose and policy of the War Powers Resolution. Necessary and Proper Clause The

neg: War Powers Resolution the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen. This was partly in response to the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, which the senators held in another resolution, subsequent to briefings from intelligence officials, was done on the orders of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed. In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only

neg: Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the ground that the enactment of the essential coverage mandate violated the Origination Clause. The suit also sought clarification from the District Court as to what extent lower courts were legally bound by the conclusion of Chief Justice Roberts and the four dissenting justices that the Act did not pass constitutional scrutiny by way of the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses. On June 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding (1) that the Commerce Clause challenge to the ACA was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in "NFIB v. Sebelius", (2) that the Origination Clause

neg: Forum selection clause Forum selection clause A forum selection clause (sometimes called a dispute resolution clause, choice of court clause, jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, depending upon its form) in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum. They usually operate in conjunction with a choice of law clause which determines the proper law of the relevant contract. There are three principal types of clause: A simple forum selection clause covering both the proper law of the contract and the forum for resolving

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty. For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States. The first practical example of this contention came in 1791, when Hamilton used the clause to defend the constitutionality of the creation of the First Bank of the United States, the first federal bank in

neg: McCulloch v. Maryland do not need to be enumerated within the text. The case was a seminal moment in federalism: the formation of a balance between federal powers and state powers. Marshall also explained in the case that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not require all federal laws to be necessary and proper and that federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the express, enumerated powers granted by the Constitution does not need to comply with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause themselves. The draft Necessary and Proper Clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution's ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in Federalist No. 33. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a "dead letter". At the Virginia

neg: State legislation in protest of federal law in the United States laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact. These resolutions attempt to reassert state sovereignty over any area not listed among the "enumerated powers" (i.e., any law based on an "expansive reading" of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Supremacy Clause would, according to this resolution, be invalid). A "State Sovereignty Bill" is one step beyond a State Sovereignty Resolution. The bill would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation. Starting in 2012, in response to a threat of

neg: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, though they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power

neg: Implied powers powers, though not explicitly mentioned. The legitimacy of these powers is derived from the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. Implied powers Implied powers, in the United States, are powers authorized by the Constitution that, while not stated, seem implied by powers that are expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the

neg: Committee of Detail with indefinite powers. Many of these eighteen enumerated powers came from the Articles of Confederation. By this, the committee made the new national government one of limited powers, despite opposition among most delegates. Rutledge was not able to completely convince Wilson, who was hostile to states rights and wanted a stronger national government. Wilson thus modified the list of enumerated powers, notably by adding the necessary and proper clause. He also strengthened the supremacy clause. These changes set the final balance between the national and state governments that would be a part of the final document, as the convention never

neg: United States v. Kebodeaux be prosecuted under the Wetterling Act. is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause as a "legitimate" consequence of the conviction under "Smith v. Doe". SORNA was an unlawful expansion of federal authority as it infringed on the states' police power. Kebodeaux's conviction violated limits set by "United States v. Comstock". Additionally, the Attorney General did not adopt a regulations applying SORNA to pre-enactment offenders until after Kebodeaux's SORNA-related sentence expired. The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, ruled that SORNA was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Despite his release before SORNA's enactment, the release was unconditional, as

neg: United States Congress due process, and equal protection under the law. Generally militia forces are controlled by state governments, not Congress. Congress also has implied powers deriving from the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause which permit Congress 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 in any Department or Officer thereof." Broad interpretations of this clause and of the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power to regulate commerce, in rulings such as McCulloch v Maryland, have effectively widened the

neg: William Rehnquist private suits does not follow from any of the express enumerated powers in Article One of the Constitution, and therefore the "Alden" Court looked to the Necessary and Proper Clause to see if that Clause authorized Congress to subject the states to lawsuits by the state's own citizens. Rehnquist agreed with Justice Kennedy's statement that such lawsuits were not "necessary and proper": Rehnquist also led the Court toward a more limited view of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. For example, he wrote for a 5-to-4 majority in "United States v. Lopez", , striking down a

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall (chief justice of the Marshall Court era), Hamilton's longtime Federalist ally, wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it conferred upon Congress an implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause so that Congress could realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express

neg: Powers of the United States Congress of all citizens regardless of race, including voting rights, due process, and equal protection under the law. Generally militia forces are controlled by state governments, not Congress. Congress also has implied powers, which derive from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution and permit Congress "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 in any department or officer thereof." Broad interpretations of this clause and of the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power to regulate

neg: Choice of law clause find as a matter of public policy, it will apply its own consumer protection laws to a dispute between a consumer and a business even if the contract calls for the application of the laws of a different jurisdiction. Choice of law clause A choice of law clause or proper law clause is a term of a contract in which the parties specify that any dispute arising under the contract shall be determined in accordance with the law of a particular jurisdiction. As business transactions and contractual obligations may cross jurisdictional borders within a nation, as well as international borders,

neg: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius individual mandate fell within the powers allotted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, no single opinion was joined by a majority of the Court. However, a majority of the Justices were of the opinion that the individual mandate did not fall under these powers. Chief Justice Roberts, writing only for himself, would have held that Congress's power to "regulate Commerce" (the "Commerce Clause" Art. I, §8, cl. 3) does not extend to the regulation of economic inactivity. A similar argument was made by the joint dissent, although the dissenters did not join this section (or

neg: McCulloch v. Maryland of Congress under the Constitution would be useless if only laws deemed essential to a power's execution could be passed. Marshall also noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not its limitations. The Court held that the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer therefore to the only way of doing something but applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally-established powers: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end,

neg: Antonin Scalia the federal government. In 2005, Scalia concurred in "Gonzales v. Raich", which read the Commerce Clause to hold that Congress could ban the use of marijuana even when states approve its use for medicinal purposes. Scalia opined that the Commerce Clause, together with the Necessary and Proper Clause, permitted the regulation. In addition, Scalia felt that Congress may regulate intrastate activities if doing so is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. He based that decision on "Wickard v. Filburn", which he now wrote "expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason". Scalia rejected the existence of

neg: Congressional oversight not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is doing; how programs are being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court has legitimated Congress’s investigative power, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit”. The “necessary and proper” clause of the

neg: Lambert v. Yellowley Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Eighteenth Amendment, which made illegal in the United States the production, transport and sale of alcohol, went into effect on January 17, 1920. Accompanying legislation under the National Prohibition Act stated that physicians with appropriate permits could prescribe alcoholic medicines, but not more than once every 10 days to the same patient. In November 1922, Lambert brought suit in federal court to prevent Yellowley and other officials from

neg: R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP will give him notice of what he has to answer," The dispute in relation to contracts only went so far as clause 4 and did not extend to a limitation on any other contract and therefore clause 6 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. Similarly the award limitation on hours at Port Pirie (clause 1) and the payment of overtime for work beyond those hours (clause 3) were not part of the dispute and were beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. The order sought by BHP was to prevent the Arbitration Court from enforcing the award, however

neg: Unitary executive theory execute, provided that those laws are constitutional. Article I, Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution known as the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution all Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". The Constitution also grants Congress power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." The theory of the unitary executive can only be legitimate insofar as it allows Congress to wield its constitutional

neg: Enumerated powers (United States) within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. Interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause has been controversial, especially during the early years of the republic. Strict constructionists interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, believe it is largely up to Congress and not the

neg: Arbitration in the United States expert in the industry within which the dispute falls (such as the construction industry, in the case of a dispute between a homeowner and his general contractor), and an experienced arbitrator. The "judge shows" that have become popular in many countries, especially the United States, are actually binding arbitration. "The People's Court" and Judge Judy are notable examples. For the relevant conflict of laws elements, see contract, forum selection clause, choice of law clause, proper law, and "lex loci arbitri" Arbitration in the United States Arbitration, in the context of United States law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution.

neg: Argument from a proper basis is what transforms true belief into knowledge)—put forth by these epistemologists have failed to capture in full what is required for knowledge. In the second book of his three book philosophical series, "Warrant and Proper Function", he introduces the notion of warrant as an alternative to justification and discusses topics like self-knowledge, memories, perception, and probability. Plantinga's "proper function" account argues that as a necessary condition of having warrant, one's "belief-forming and belief-maintaining apparatus of powers" are functioning properly—"working the way it ought to work". Plantinga explains his argument for proper function with reference to a "design plan", as well

neg: Federalist No. 44 states flatly that the clause is "invulnerable" and that without it the constitution would be a "dead letter." He says that the Constitution might have listed or enumerated those necessary and proper powers or attempted to list those that were expressly not necessary and proper, but argues that either exercise would have been futile in that no list could ever fully take into account all of the nation's present and future concerns. He responds to critics who feared that the clause would allow the government to overstep its powers that the people would have the same redress to this as

neg: Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services Necessary and Proper Clause. On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding (1) that the Commerce Clause challenge to the ACA was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in "NFIB v. Sebelius", (2) that the Origination Clause challenge failed, as the bill enacting the individual mandate was not a bill for raising revenue, and (3) that even if the bill enacting the individual mandate were a bill for raising revenue, the Origination Clause challenge failed because the bill was an amendment to a bill that had originated in the House of Representatives. On

neg: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius any section) of the Chief Justice's opinion. Thus a majority of the justices held that the individual mandate did not fall within Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. Regarding the argument that the mandate penalizes or taxes "inactivity", Roberts wrote: Further, five Justices including Roberts would have held that the individual mandate was unsupported by the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). The Court narrowed the Medicaid penalty provision by ruling that the federal government could not withhold existing Medicaid funding from states that choose not to participate the Act's extension of the Medicaid program. Justices Roberts,

neg: Commerce Clause to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, it is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the US Supreme Court's interpretation. During the Marshall Court era (1801 to 1835), Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of

neg: Sharp-P-completeness of 01-permanent to show that one has a set of cycle covers corresponding to each M that have the necessary properties. The sort of Z's that don't induce assignments are the ones with cycles that "jump" inside the clause components. That is, if for every formula_24, at least one of formula_24's input edges is in Z, and every output edge of the clause components is in Z when the corresponding input edge is in Z, then Z is proper with respect to each clause component, and Z will produce a satisfying assignment for formula_5. This is because proper Z's contain either the

neg: History of taxation in the United States directed to be taken." Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it, he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as states or as a larger group. What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact

neg: George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd and he did not look at the statute. On the basis that clause 1 said 'any seeds or plants sold', he held that what was sold could not be considered seeds (because they simply did not work) and therefore the exclusion in clause 2, which was attached to what was sold in clause 1 had no effect. The majority, Oliver LJ and Kerr LJ, held the limitation clause did not apply because, like Parker J, they held that what was sold was not seed. However, Lord Denning MR dissented from the majority's reasoning and argued the clause applied to limit

neg: Craig Chandler comments likely to expose persons or groups to hatred and contempt on the basis of sexual orientation, that it broadcast false and misleading news, and that the program was used to retaliate and threaten retaliation for making a human rights complaint. In January 2007, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council reached a decision in the complaint. The Panel concluded that a broadcast on July 29, 2006 was in violation of Clause 6 ("Full, Fair and Proper Presentation") and Clause 7 ("Controversial Public Issues") of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics, but not Clause 2 ("Human Rights"). The Panel's decision,

neg: Cleft sentence that the relative clause is headed (rather than headless), with wh-word being located outside the clause proper and functioning as its head. Miller (1996) also endorses this approach, citing cross-linguistic evidence that the wh-word functions as indefinite deictics. The cleft clause debate gets more complex with it-clefts, where researchers struggle to even agree as to the type of clause that is involved: the traditionalists claim it to be a relative clause (Huddleston and Pullum 2002), while others reject this on the basis of a lack of noun phrase antecedent (Quirk et al. 1985, Sornicola 1988, Miller 1999), as exemplified below:

neg: Printz v. United States be coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carry out its previously enumerated power. The Tenth Amendment, Stevens explained, contains no additional limitations on federal power, serving merely to clarify that the Government has only those powers granted by the Constitution. Stevens extolled the benefits of cooperative federalism. Federal direction of state officials in this manner is analogous to ordering the mass inoculation of children to forestall an epidemic, or directing state officials to respond to a terrorist threat. He was very concerned with the ability of

neg: People in Need materials on migration and foreigners living in the Czech Republic. The organization publishes what calls the ‘Predator Index’, a ranking of companies that provide unguaranteed loans, with inappropriate terms and conditions for the debtor. The index is compiled on the basis of clarity of contract and conditions, the presence of default interest in excess of statutory regulations, the cost of a delayed payment in the form of penalties, the cost of the loan in the case of timely payment and the proper use of the arbitration clause. One World Film Festival People in Need organizes the biggest human rights film

neg: Walker v Boyle dispute with the neighbour, which Mr Boyle incorrectly thought had been settled. Condition 17(1) of the contract (which incorporated the ‘National Conditions of Sale’) said that, ‘no error, misstatement or omission in any preliminary answer concerning the property shall annul the sale’. Mr Walker brought an action for rescission based on misrepresentation. The question was whether Mr and Mrs Boyle could rely on the exclusion clause and whether it was reasonable under MA 1967 s 3. Dillon J held the condition fell foul of s 3 MA 1967. He held Mrs Boyle had not shown that the exclusion satisfied s

neg: Solomon Nason of 1855. They settled in the area later known as "Nasonville" (at that time commencing about three or four miles southwest of what was to become Marshfield, and extending towards Maple Works and Neillsville in Clark County) since the Nason brothers had early settled at a site about eleven miles southwest of Marshfield. The Nasons settled permanently in what would later be termed Nasonville proper in September 1856, buying land in Section 5, Town 24 N, Range 2 E (Rock Township), and also buying several adjoining sections. Solomon later donated a portion of this land, on which the hamlet of

neg: Clarence Kraft Players of America, which under the terms of a new agreement with the Major League teams would allow Kraft to tender his services to higher-classed minor league teams. Under this clause, Kraft signed with the Class AA Newark Indians. However, the National Commission ruled that the rule could not be applied retroactively, and that Kraft's rights belonged to the Class A Nashville Volunteers. Kraft refused to report to the Volunteers, however, and the dispute was only settled when Robins owner Charles Ebbets paid Nashville $2,500 to rescind their claim on Kraft. Later, playing for the Fort Worth Panthers, Kraft led

neg: Forum selection clause contract. And the contract may provide for a staged procedure for resolving disputes. For example: The choice of law stage in a conflict case requires the forum court to decide which of several competing laws should be applied to resolve the dispute. In this, there is an important distinction to be made between a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause. As an application of the public policy of freedom of contract, the parties are usually free to nominate the proper law under which all relevant disputes will be resolved. If there is an express selection, this choice

neg: Necessary and Proper Clause the new nation's history. Concerned that monied Northern aristocrats would take advantage of the bank to exploit the South, Madison argued that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to charter a bank. Hamilton countered that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, claiming the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, not just those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers. To embarrass Madison, Hamilton's contrary claims from "The Federalist Papers" were read aloud in Congress: Eventually, Southern opposition to the bank and to Hamilton's plan

neg: Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice Court's judgment. Parties will usually define the nature of the dispute between them and the legal questions on which they wish the Court to rule. Second, 36(1) also gives the Court jurisdiction over "matters specifically provided for ... in treaties and conventions in force". Many treaties will contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ. For instance, Article 32(2) of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides for mediation and other dispute-resolution options, but also states that "[a]ny such dispute which cannot be settled ... shall be referred, at the

neg: Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant basis that "uhj" as an acronym is not commonly used in the Bahá'í Faith to refer to the Universal House of Justice. The panel also concluded that the NSA was not attempting a reverse domain name hijacking. All other issues were deemed not necessary to address. Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant The Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant (BUPC) is a small Bahá'í sect founded by Leland Jensen in the early 1970s. The claims of the BUPC focus on a dispute in leadership following the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957, and a subsequent dispute among the

neg: Shapiro v. Thompson by less restrictive means (e.g. calling welfare recipients periodically). Finally the Court rejected the argument that Congress had authorized the waiting period because Congress does not have the power to authorize violations of the equal protection clause. Chief Justice Warren, joined by Justice Black, dissented. Congress has the power to authorize these restrictions under the commerce clause. Under the commerce clause, Congress needs only a rational basis to a legitimate state interest, not a necessary relation to a compelling interest. Justice Harlan also dissented, arguing that the requirement of a compelling interest and necessary relationship between the law and that

neg: Argument from a proper basis Argument from a proper basis The argument from a proper basis is an ontological argument for the existence of God related to fideism. Alvin Plantinga argued that belief in God is a properly basic belief, and so no basis for belief in God is necessary. The best-known defender of this argument is Alvin Plantinga. According to the argument from a proper basis, belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God. More specifically, Plantinga argues that belief in God is properly basic, and, owing to a religious externalist epistemology, he claims

neg: Clarence Thomas States v. Lopez" and "United States v. Morrison", the court held that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-commercial activities. In these cases, Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion arguing for the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Subsequently, in "Gonzales v. Raich", the court interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause to empower the federal government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who used marijuana grown at home for medicinal purposes, even where the activity is legal in that particular state. Thomas dissented in "Raich", again arguing for the original meaning

neg: Individual mandate form of federal action... The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States." On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the health insurance mandate as a valid tax, in the case of "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius" and thus within Congress' taxing power, but not under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. On , final regulations were published in the "Federal Register" (), with minor corrections published (). On , President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and

neg: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Brushaber], it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution..." The Court further held that the Revenue Act does not violate the uniformity clause of of the U.S. Constitution. The Court stated: "So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions [by Mr. Frank Brushaber] are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled

neg: Bernal v. Fainter and found that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Texas' citizenship requirement did not pass either strict scrutiny or rational basis review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the rational basis test was the proper standard of review and that under this standard, the citizenship requirement "bears a rational relationship to the state's interest in the proper and orderly handling of a countless variety of legal documents of importance to the state." Citing "Graham v. Richardson", the Supreme Court recognized that legal aliens are a

neg: Sherbert v. Verner was not the degree of injury to Sherbert, but South Carolina's denial of unemployment on the basis of her beliefs. The issue was not individual action, but government action, and under what basis government could deny someone benefits. Stewart concurred in the result, but not in the majority's reasoning. He did not dismiss the Establishment Clause issue as the majority did. Instead, he identified as a "double-barreled dilemma" between Free Exercise Clause protection of Sherbert's actions and — as it had been interpreted, wrongly in his view, by the court — Establishment Clause prohibition of such protection. He also disagreed

neg: Prime meridian the reported times of lunar eclipses in different countries. Ptolemy's "Geographia" was first printed with maps at Bologna in 1477, and many early globes in the 16th century followed his lead. But there was still a hope that a "natural" basis for a prime meridian existed. Christopher Columbus reported (1493) that the compass pointed due north somewhere in mid-Atlantic, and this fact was used in the important Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 which settled the territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal over newly discovered lands. The Tordesillas line was eventually settled at 370 leagues west of Cape Verde. This is

neg: Kevin Rudd that basis, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull decided to decline the request; since nomination by the Australian government was considered a necessary prerequisite for candidacy, Turnbull's decision essentially ended Rudd's campaign; Rudd later confirmed as much. However, there remains dispute over what if any earlier assurances Turnbull may have given to Rudd and about what happened in the Cabinet meeting. Rudd is also a Member of the Global Leadership Foundation, an organization which works to support democratic leadership, prevent and resolve conflict through mediation and promote good governance in the form of democratic institutions, open markets, human rights and the rule

neg: Re Peachdart Ltd appointed receivers. A dispute then arose as to which creditor had better title to the leather - Barclays Bank under the floating charge, or Freudenberg under the retention of title clause. The receivers challenged the clause on the basis that the power to trace title into subsequent products meant that the arrangement was effectively an equitable charge, which was void for non-registration. The case came before Vinelott J. The parties acknowledged that these issues had come before the courts several times, most notably in the leading cases of "Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd" [1976] 1 WLR 676,

neg: Boddie v. Connecticut to dissolve this legal relationship without affording all citizens access to the means it had prescribed for doing so. Justice Douglas concurred in the result on the ground that the equal protection clause rather than the due process clause was the proper basis of decision. Justice Brennan concurred on the ground that while denying indigents access to the courts for nonpayment of a fee is a denial of due process, it is also a denial of equal protection of the laws, and no distinction can be drawn between divorce suits and other actions. Justice Black dissented on the ground that

neg: Proper law Greece, delivery to Belgium, loading in Belgium, carriage on the high seas, and unloading in Sweden. So, if the contract does not make an express selection of the law to apply (see choice of law clause), the parties are deemed to have chosen to be bound by the law with which the contract has the closest and most real connection. The general rule is that the "proper law" is the primary system of law which governs most aspects of the factual situation giving rise to the dispute. This does not imply that all the aspects of the factual circumstances are

neg: Frederick Lenz Lenz drowned in the bay next to his home on April 12, 1998. He left an $18 million estate. His will was a matter of dispute between the National Audubon Society and his estate, which was settled by a donation to the National Audubon Society, and the creation of the Frederick P. Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism, which is headed by Dr. Lenz’s accountant, Norman Marcus (executor of his will) and Norman Oberstein, his attorney. This act fulfilled provisions of the will necessary to apply the funds from Lenz's estate to the creation of the Lenz Foundation. According to "The

neg: Import-Export Clause purpose of the clause as: Import-Export Clause Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states and the federal government, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and

neg: David Wittig 2010, the new trial was set to begin September 20. However, the trial judge first was "expected to rule whether to proceed at all (and, if so, on what basis), in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling [in June] on the conviction of the former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling, which appears to limit the government’s use of the so-called honest services statute to seek convictions in corruption cases. A motion to dismiss the case is before" the judge, Julie A. Robinson. In 2010 all charges against Wittig were dismissed. In July, 2011, Wittig settled a dispute with Weststar Energy for

neg: Article One of the United States Constitution the implied powers, any action must be necessary and proper in the execution of the enumerated powers. The ninth section of Article One places limits on Congress' powers: The first clause in this section prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808. Congress could however, levy a "per capita" duty of up to ten Spanish milled dollars for each slave imported into the country. This clause was further entrenched into the Constitution by Article V, where it is explicitly shielded from constitutional amendment prior to 1808. On March

neg: Bond v. United States (2014) text as clearly federalizing a purely-local crime and Scalia concluding that it is unconstitutional for Congress to federalize a purely-local crime. Scalia discounted the Court's logic as "result-driven antitextualism [that] befogs what is evident." Constitutional avoidance, according to Scalia, does not require interpreting the statute constitutionally because he reads the text as "utterly clear." Because the "unavoidable meaning of the text" is different from the meaning adopted by the majority, Scalia then proceeded to the constitutional question. Scalia considered the necessary and proper clause not to apply to implementing treaties. Therefore, a treaty can be implemented only by the other

neg: Randy Barnett the Indian tribes." That is amplified by the additional power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." The amendment would overrule the current interpretation of the commerce clause by removing three applications of the interstate commerce clause: the regulation of an activity having effects outside of a state, the regulation of instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and regulation as part of a broader regulatory scheme. The first clause of the amendment would disallow unfunded mandates so Congress could not make laws, even within its power, if they would require the states

neg: Legal history of income tax in the United States enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it, he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as states or as a larger group. In the early 18th century and well into the 19th century, a number of the southern colonies and states

neg: NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007) 2009, only the second such public ruling since the enactment of the FISA Act. Article I vests Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "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 in any Department or Officer thereof." The Supreme Court has used the "necessary and proper" clause to affirm broad Congressional authority to legislate as it sees fit in the domestic

neg: Report on a National Bank and perform fiscal duties for the federal government. Secretary Hamilton regarded the bank as indispensable to producing a stable and flexible financial system. The ease with which Federalists advanced legislation to incorporate the bank impelled agrarian opposition hostile to Hamilton ’s emerging economic nationalism. Resorting to constitutional arguments, Representative James Madison challenged Congress’s broad authority to grant charters of incorporation under the “necessary and proper” clause of the US Constitution, and charging Hamilton with violating a literal or strict constructionist interpretation of the founding document. Despite Madison’s objections, the legislation to form the First Bank of the United States passed,

neg: Import-Export Clause Import-Export Clause Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states and the federal government, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and

neg: Criminal law in the Waite Court cases removed to federal court under the civil rights removal statute to be remanded back to state court, finding that the statute did not authorize federal jurisdiction because the bar on African-Americans serving on juries was not codified by statute or state constitution. In "Ex parte Wall" (1883), the Court denied a writ of mandamus, finding that it was proper to remove an attorney who participated in a lynch mob from a case. In "United States v. Fox" (1877), the Court held that the criminal bankruptcy fraud statute exceeded Congress's powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause. In "United States

neg: Chamizal dispute Project. The dispute continued to affect Mexico–United States relations adversely until President John F. Kennedy agreed to settle it on the basis of the 1911 arbitration award. It was hoped that settlement of the dispute would strengthen the Alliance for Progress and solidify the Organization of American States. The dispute was formally settled on 14 January 1964, when the United States and Mexico ratified a treaty that generally followed the 1911 arbitration recommendations. The agreement awarded to Mexico of the Chamizal area and east of the adjacent Cordova Island. Although no payments were made between the two governments, the United

neg: Federalist No. 33 in 1788) to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton notes that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause "have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution." This stirs up much of the issues amongst the people due to the uncertainty of the consequences of granting the government "too much power". He argues that the first clause is implicit in the constitution—if congress is granted a power, it must necessarily be able to draft laws that enable it to execute that power. Hamilton then applies this line of logic

neg: Costs in English law with no general restrictions on what can be claimed. If a prosecution has started since 1 October 2012, then the amount that can be claimed is much lower. Effectively, the costs are limited to legal aid rates. Costs in English law In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties. Each party is initially liable to pay his own solicitors on their agreed basis his "solicitor and own client costs", which will include disbursements such as barrister's fees; in case of dispute, the court has jurisdiction to assess and determine the proper amount. In legal

neg: Taxing and Spending Clause power to spend arising specifically from this clause have been questioned, with the Necessary and Proper Clause being suggested as the actual source of Congress's spending power. The Supreme Court has also found that, in addition to the power to use taxes to punish disfavored conduct, Congress can also use its power to spend to encourage favored conduct. In "South Dakota v. Dole", the Court upheld a federal law which withheld highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. Several Constitutional provisions address the taxation and spending authority of Congress. These include both requirements

neg: Anti-Administration party only had one State Department patronage job, which he gave to Freneau. In the 2nd United States Congress (1791–1793), the Anti-Administration elements were more numerous and included about 32 House members (out of 72). In 1791, Madison and Hamilton again clashed when the latter proposed the creation of a national bank. Southern planters were opposed, but urban merchants supported the idea. Madison said the Bank was unconstitutional, but Hamilton successfully argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution allowed for it. The French Revolutionary Wars, which began in April 1792, hardened the differences between the factions. The Pro-Administration

neg: Statutory term analysis Statutory term analysis Statutory term analysis is a method of analyzing a statutory term in a law to ensure that it is Congress, not a judge, who has the power to make laws under Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution (the Necessary and Proper Clause). The Statutory Term Analysis (STA) method includes using only the text of the United States Congressional Record as evidence of the legal meaning of a term in a federal statute and provides new detailed federal rules of evidence to a judge on how the judge (or judges) is to consider the

neg: Street Vendors Act, 2014 Court of India, which has recognized street vending as a source of livelihood, directed the ministry to work out on a central legislation, and a draft of same was unveiled to the public on 11 November 2011. The key point of the draft bill were, protection legitimate street vendors from harassment by police and civic authorities, and demarcation of "vending zones" on the basis of "traditional natural markets", proper representation of vendors and women in decision making bodies, and establishment of effective grievance redressal and dispute resolution mechanism. The bill was drafted with the help of the National Advisory Council,

neg: United States Intelligence Community Oversight DoD can conduct its intelligence and counterintelligence missions while protecting the statutory and constitutional rights of U.S. persons." Congress justifies its oversight abilities using two main reasons; the first is the Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution (since courts found that the clause includes the power to require reports from the executive on anything that can be legislated) and the second is the Power of the Purse. Congressional oversight focuses on the supervising of the budget, quality of analysis, legality of actions, and intelligence failures. The two principal committees that are charged with intelligence community oversight are the

neg: Bernard A. Friedman the wedding of the plaintiffs who he had originally ruled in favor of, after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled two months earlier that all state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. On November 20, 2018, he ruled that the Federal law against female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstutional because the law overreaches the Federal government's enumerated powers as defined by the "Necessary and proper" clause and the "Interstate commerce" clause. Bernard A. Friedman Bernard A. Friedman (born September 23, 1943) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

neg: United States v. Comstock properly before the Court. Six days before Graydon Earl Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Comstock was a sexually dangerous person. The law that Attorney General Gonzales was applying was ruled unconstitutional by lower courts on the grounds it exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. Argued in January 2010 by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the position of the United States was that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to enact the law. Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which decided that the "Necessary and

neg: Siege of Krujë (1466–67) was nearing its end and that if the necessary actions were not brought up to speed, Albania would fall along with Venice's possessions. Skanderbeg's requests for proper aid were continually rejected on the basis that Italy's peace must first be secured and instead Paul ordered Ferdinand to award to Skanderbeg what tribute would have been given to Rome. Skanderbeg lost all hope and decided to return to Albania before pleas from several cardinals convinced to stay, offering aid from their own pockets and hope in persuading Paul. A third consistory was convened on 13 February 1467 which, like the other

neg: Curtilage dispute over Fort Leavenworth, as to "what lands properly belonged to this military post, and the proper curtilage necessary for the use and enjoyment of it". In "Sheets v. Selden's Lessee" (1864), the Court referred to "a grant of a messuage or a messuage with the appurtenances will carry the dwelling-house and adjoining buildings, and also its orchard, garden, and curtilage." The Supreme Court holds that the Fourth Amendment protects homes and their curtilage from unreasonable searches without a warrant. However, curtilage is afforded less protection than a home. Absent "No Trespassing" signs or fences with locked gates, it is

neg: Equal Protection Clause it could enhance. During the debate in Congress, more than one version of the clause was considered. Here is the first version: "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure ... to all persons in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property." Bingham said about this version: "It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons." The main opponent of the

neg: Passenger Cases Clause); the passage of the fourth clause of Section 8 authorizing Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization!;" and the passage of the clause prohibiting any "Preference" with respect to any "Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another;" the provision of the first clause of Section 10, prohibiting the states from entering into any treaty; the provisions of the second clause of Section 10 prohibiting the states from laying, without the consent of Congress, any "imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's