Podcasts about proper clause

"Undefined, unbounded, and immense power" - that's what anti-federalists warned we'd eventually get under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Today, it's easily one of the most twisted and abused parts of the Constitution. In this episode, learn about three key views of the clause: the modern view, which began with Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall; the strictly limited view from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson; and a middle ground from one of the clause's authors, Edmund Randolph. The post Necessary and Proper: The Big Lie That Unleashed Big Government first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Join Jay Scott as he uncovers the Anti-Federalist group that stood against George Washington, the Federalist, and the Constitution in the 1780's!  Natural Freedom, Equal Treatment, Right to Bear Arms, Accountability, and Limits to Power were some of the key points the Anti-Federalist group rallied for. They saw similarities of an Aristocracy rule in the first Constitution. VERY DANGEROUS!  Also important, no clear declarations of individual human rights were written. (Thank these guys for The Bill of Rights we have now.) Learn how these Hero's put their neck on the line for true freedom at a delicate moment in the beginning stages of the USA. You will never think of our origins the same again! Disclaimer: For legal reasons... !!! This show is for entertainment purposes only !!! ~ ENJOY! ____________________________________________________ ❤️Help -keeping it REAL- by being a supporter of the podcast! Support is as simple as giving whatever you feel the show is worth to you. I will always be dedicated to bringing you value. Please consider returning some value in return! Even a like, comment, or share helps. You have my gratitude.

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 – Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Source: Excerpts from "Constitutional Law Lecture 1: The Structure of Government and Separation of Powers" I. Foundational Overview I begin by noting that the U.S. Constitution creates a structure of government designed to prevent tyranny. The three branches—Congress (legislative), the President (executive), and the courts (judicial)—operate under a system of separation of powers. This arrangement is complemented by checks and balances, whereby each branch can restrain the others. Federalism further divides power between the federal government and the states. Key Themes: Separation of Powers: This doctrine ensures that no single branch amasses unchecked authority. “Separation of powers is … the bedrock of the American constitutional system.” Checks and Balances: Each branch has devices (like vetoes or judicial review) to limit the other branches. “These interlocking mechanisms create a dynamic tension that fosters a balance of power.” Federalism: The Constitution specifies certain powers (enumerated) for the federal government and reserves others for the states. Judicial Review: Established in Marbury v. Madison, it empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws or actions. “Without Marbury, the checks and balances system would lack a critical enforcement mechanism.” Supremacy Clause: Federal law preempts conflicting state law, unifying legal standards throughout the nation. II. Constitutional Foundations Articles I, II, III, and VI Article I defines Congress's powers, including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Article II vests executive power in the President, granting authority as Commander-in-Chief and in foreign affairs. Article III establishes the judiciary, anchored by the Supreme Court. Article VI contains the Supremacy Clause, ensuring federal law supremacy. Federalism and Division of Power Enumerated Powers: Taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, defense. Reserved Powers: Those retained by states (e.g., police powers, education). Key Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld implied federal powers. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded Congress's reach over interstate commerce. III. Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Congress) Commerce Clause: Broad authority over interstate activities, yet subject to judicial limits (United States v. Lopez). Taxing and Spending: Congress can attach conditions to federal funds (South Dakota v. Dole). Necessary and Proper Clause: Permits laws essential to carrying out enumerated powers. Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must not transfer its core legislative function to another branch (INS v. Chadha). Executive Powers (President) Commander-in-Chief: Authority over military decisions. Appointment: Nominates judges and officials (with Senate approval). Veto: Power to reject legislation. Foreign Affairs: Treaties, diplomacy; recognized as broad in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Key Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – limited executive power over private property without legislative authorization. United States v. Nixon (1974) – limited executive privilege in criminal investigations. Judicial Powers Judicial Review: Power to invalidate unconstitutional statutes (Marbury v. Madison). Justiciability: Requires standing, ripeness, and mootness for a federal court to hear a case (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). Federal Question Jurisdiction: Authority over federal issues; example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) advanced civil rights jurisprudence. IV. Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts Congress → Executive: Impeachment, budgetary control. Executive → Congress: Veto power, executive orders. Judiciary → Both: Judicial review of legislative acts and executive actions (Cooper v. Aaron). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties Key examples include Korematsu v. United States (1944) and Ha --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Opponents of an Article V convention seem eager to ascribe more powers to Congress than is supported by law. Learn more by listening to this essay by Robert G. Natelson, Professor Law for the University of Montana. Natelson's work has been cited as high as the Supreme Court level. Download This Essay The Law of Article V book by Robert Natelson

Today, the Two Mikes spoke with Sheriff Richard Mack, who was a constitutional sheriff in GrahamCounty in southwestern Arizona. He also is the founder and the president of an association named theConstitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA, https://cspoa.org) which is holding itsannual conference in Orlando, Florida on 7 September 2024. The CSPOA's membership includes about athousand of the republic's constitutional sheriffs – one-third of the country's total number -- many oftheir subordinates, and it is open for membership to all American citizens interested in its non-violenteffort to restore constitutional government to all of the United States, with a special emphasis on fullyrestoring the Bill of Rights. Sheriff Mack noted that the constitutional sheriffs swear an oath ofallegiance to the U.S. Constitution and so can act in protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness – the latter refers to the accumulation of personal property – and, for example, can block gunseizures, protect churches and businesses from mandated closings, as in the case of Covid, and preventthe outrageous denials of liberty we have seen against Amish farmers in Pennsylvania and other farmersaround the country. In essence, Sheriff Mack said, the maintenance of the peoples' liberty is theconstitutional sheriffs' sole responsibility. It also should be noted that Sheriff Mack managed to achievethe almost impossible when he launched a personal law suit that made its way to the Supreme Court –and he won! In the case of Mack-Vs-United States (1995), Mack challenged the legality of “The BradyHandgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required ‘local chief law enforcement officers. (CLEOs) toperform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the AttorneyGeneral establishes a federal system for this purpose.”(1)--the Supreme Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are notsubject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federalgovernment to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks onapplicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it tocompel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. (2)Sheriff Mack's argument not only won the case, but, in its decision, the Supreme Court also stuck a blowin favor of state's rights by reasserting the constitutional fact that state legislatures are not vassals ofthe federal government. Indeed, the Founders intended the states to be a check and balance against thesteady expansion of federal power. That undesirable and Constitution-wrecking expansion is now a factand it appears that constitutional law enforcement officers may well be our last, best chance to preventthe federal government from solidifying itself as a vast concentration of dictatorial power.The text of the majority decision – written by Justice Antonin Scalia -- in Mack-vs-United States (1995) isavailable in a pamphlet at https://www.cspoa.com, as well as elsewhere on the internet.Subscribe to Freedom First Network on Rumble to watch all of our shows LIVE: https://freedomfirst.tvElevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code TWOMIKES for 15% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.comBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code TWOMIKES for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn.Protect your financial future with precious metals! Get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from Genesis Gold today and take control of your financial destiny! https://pickaxgold.comUnleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code TWOMIKES and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

Summary of Chapter 4: Congressional Powers. Chapter 4 explores the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, enabling it to effectively govern and address the nation's needs. These powers include the Enumerated Powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Powers. Enumerated Powers: These are specific authorities listed in Article I, Section 8, including the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, promote the progress of science and the arts through patents and copyrights, raise and support armies, and declare war. These powers allow Congress to create laws and policies that support national governance and public welfare. Necessary and Proper Clause: Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this clause gives Congress the flexibility to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers. It ensures that Congress can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues. Landmark cases like McCulloch v Maryland and the Affordable Care Act demonstrate the broad application of this clause. Commerce Clause: Located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause aims to create a unified national economy and has been expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, allowing Congress to regulate various economic activities. Key cases such as Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Filburn highlight its extensive reach. Taxing and Spending Powers: Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2, these powers enable Congress to levy taxes, collect revenue, and allocate funds for the nation's general welfare. This includes funding government operations, implementing public policies, and promoting economic stability. Notable examples include the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal grants to states and local governments. Together, these powers equip Congress with the necessary tools to legislate effectively, ensure national prosperity, and address both immediate and long-term challenges facing the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Congressional Powers. Chapter 4 explores the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, enabling it to effectively govern and address the nation's needs. These powers include the Enumerated Powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Powers. Enumerated Powers: These are specific authorities listed in Article I, Section 8, including the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, promote the progress of science and the arts through patents and copyrights, raise and support armies, and declare war. These powers allow Congress to create laws and policies that support national governance and public welfare. Necessary and Proper Clause: Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this clause gives Congress the flexibility to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers. It ensures that Congress can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues. Landmark cases like McCulloch v Maryland and the Affordable Care Act demonstrate the broad application of this clause. Commerce Clause: Located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause aims to create a unified national economy and has been expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, allowing Congress to regulate various economic activities. Key cases such as Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Filburn highlight its extensive reach. Taxing and Spending Powers: Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2, these powers enable Congress to levy taxes, collect revenue, and allocate funds for the nation's general welfare. This includes funding government operations, implementing public policies, and promoting economic stability. Notable examples include the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal grants to states and local governments. Together, these powers equip Congress with the necessary tools to legislate effectively, ensure national prosperity, and address both immediate and long-term challenges facing the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 2: The Structure of the Federal Government Separation of Powers The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. It divides the federal government into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities, ensuring that no single entity wields unchecked authority. Legislative Branch (Article I): Comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate, collectively known as Congress. Its primary functions include making laws, declaring war, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, and controlling taxation and spending policies. Executive Branch (Article II): Headed by the President, who acts as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, oversees the execution of federal laws, conducts foreign policy, and has the power to veto legislation. The President is supported by the Vice President, Cabinet, and various executive agencies. Judicial Branch (Article III): Consists of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. It interprets laws, adjudicates disputes under the law, and has the authority to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This system of separation of powers is designed to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. It creates a framework for each branch to operate independently while maintaining a system of mutual oversight. Checks and Balances To further safeguard against tyranny, the Constitution implements a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government has mechanisms to limit or check the powers of the other branches: Legislative Checks: Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote, control funding for executive actions, and impeach and remove the President or federal judges for misconduct. The Senate also confirms judicial and executive appointments and ratifies treaties. Executive Checks: The President can veto legislation, appoint judges and other officials, and issue executive orders to direct government operations. The President also has the power to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes. Judicial Checks: The judiciary can review and invalidate laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional through judicial review. Judges are appointed for life, ensuring independence from political pressures. These checks and balances ensure that each branch can restrain the other branches, fostering a balanced distribution of power and promoting accountability within the government. Federalism: Division of Power Between Federal and State Governments Federalism is a defining feature of the U.S. constitutional system, dividing authority between the national government and the states. This division allows for a balance of power, with each level of government exercising sovereignty in its sphere. Federal Powers: The Constitution grants the federal government certain enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, conducting foreign affairs, and providing for national defense. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to enact laws essential to carrying out these powers. State Powers: The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. This includes authority over areas such as public health, safety, education, and local governance. Concurrent Powers: Both federal and state governments share some powers, including the ability to tax, build roads, and enforce laws. In cases of conflict, the Supremacy Clause asserts that federal law prevails over state law. Federalism promotes diversity and experimentation in policy, as states can tailor their laws to local needs and preferences. It also provides a system of government that accommodates a large and diverse nation by distributing power across multiple levels. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 2: The Structure of the Federal Government Separation of Powers The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. It divides the federal government into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities, ensuring that no single entity wields unchecked authority. Legislative Branch (Article I): Comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate, collectively known as Congress. Its primary functions include making laws, declaring war, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, and controlling taxation and spending policies. Executive Branch (Article II): Headed by the President, who acts as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, oversees the execution of federal laws, conducts foreign policy, and has the power to veto legislation. The President is supported by the Vice President, Cabinet, and various executive agencies. Judicial Branch (Article III): Consists of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. It interprets laws, adjudicates disputes under the law, and has the authority to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This system of separation of powers is designed to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. It creates a framework for each branch to operate independently while maintaining a system of mutual oversight. Checks and Balances To further safeguard against tyranny, the Constitution implements a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government has mechanisms to limit or check the powers of the other branches: Legislative Checks: Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote, control funding for executive actions, and impeach and remove the President or federal judges for misconduct. The Senate also confirms judicial and executive appointments and ratifies treaties. Executive Checks: The President can veto legislation, appoint judges and other officials, and issue executive orders to direct government operations. The President also has the power to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes. Judicial Checks: The judiciary can review and invalidate laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional through judicial review. Judges are appointed for life, ensuring independence from political pressures. These checks and balances ensure that each branch can restrain the other branches, fostering a balanced distribution of power and promoting accountability within the government. Federalism: Division of Power Between Federal and State Governments Federalism is a defining feature of the U.S. constitutional system, dividing authority between the national government and the states. This division allows for a balance of power, with each level of government exercising sovereignty in its sphere. Federal Powers: The Constitution grants the federal government certain enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, conducting foreign affairs, and providing for national defense. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to enact laws essential to carrying out these powers. State Powers: The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. This includes authority over areas such as public health, safety, education, and local governance. Concurrent Powers: Both federal and state governments share some powers, including the ability to tax, build roads, and enforce laws. In cases of conflict, the Supremacy Clause asserts that federal law prevails over state law. Federalism promotes diversity and experimentation in policy, as states can tailor their laws to local needs and preferences. It also provides a system of government that accommodates a large and diverse nation by distributing power across multiple levels. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Today we wrap up Article 1 - Section 8 and talk about the Necessary and Proper Clause! Thanks to our sponsor - Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

One of the most abused and misused clauses of the Constitution - and also one of the most ambiguous, even at the time of the founding - the so-called “sweeping clause.” The post Constitution 101: Necessary and Proper Clause first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Brutus 1 argued that federal power was bad and that the Constitution gives too much power to the federal government. For example, the Necessary and Proper Clause would allow the federal government to make any laws, and the Supremacy Clause that said that federal law supersedes state law would give states no power to disagree with the federal government.

Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 33, "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation," examines the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.Morgan Zegers and Connor Clegg explain that the Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to create powers, but rather to execute the existing powers provided to the government in the constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that the laws of a society must be the supreme regulator of each state's conduct; otherwise; the country will not be united on a federal level.Join Morgan Zegers weekly on Freedom Papers for a conversation that focuses on the necessity of America's most important manuscripts and the debates surrounding them!#TaxationIsTheft #FreedomPapers #iHeartAmerica #BigGovSucks #FederalistPapers

Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 33, "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation," examines the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.Morgan Zegers and Connor Clegg explain that the Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to create powers, but rather to execute the existing powers provided to the government in the constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that the laws of a society must be the supreme regulator of each state's conduct; otherwise; the country will not be united on a federal level.Join Morgan Zegers weekly on Freedom Papers for a conversation that focuses on the necessity of America's most important manuscripts and the debates surrounding them!#TaxationIsTheft #FreedomPapers #iHeartAmerica #BigGovSucks #FederalistPapers

In this episode of The Constitution Line by Line, Senator Mike Lee covers Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, famously known as the “necessary and proper clause.” Senator Lee discusses this final and highly debated clause of Article I, Section 8, presenting the array of interpretations of this clause from the founders and the Supreme Court cases that have been argued over the meaning of this clause. This podcast is brought to you by Free the People in collaboration with The Federalist Society. The video version of this podcast is available on YouTube @freethepeople. To learn more about Free the People, visit https://freethepeople.org. To learn more about The Federalist Society, visit https://fedsoc.org.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state. The amendment was proposed by the 1st United States Congress in 1789 during its first term following the adoption of the Constitution. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite before they would ratify the Constitution, and particularly to satisfy demands of Anti-Federalists, who opposed the creation of a stronger federal government. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify how the federal government's powers should be interpreted and to reaffirm the nature of federalism. Justices and commentators have publicly wondered whether the Tenth Amendment retains any legal significance. Text. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Drafting and adoption. The Tenth Amendment is similar to Article II of 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 to the United States, in Congress assembled. After the Constitution was ratified, South Carolina Representative Thomas Tudor Tucker and Massachusetts Representative Elbridge Gerry separately proposed similar amendments limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers. James Madison opposed the amendments, stating that "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia." When a vote on this version of the amendment with "expressly delegated" was defeated, Connecticut Representative Roger Sherman drafted the Tenth Amendment in its ratified form, omitting "expressly". Sherman's language allowed for an expansive reading of the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. When James Madison introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, he explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary: I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it, and therefore propose it. The states ratified the Tenth Amendment, declining to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights. The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or an implication. The phrase "... or to the people" was handwritten by the clerk of the Senate as the Bill of Rights circulated between the two Houses of Congress.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution is the Necessary and Proper Clause. "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." Does that mean Congress can pass any law which they think is necessary? Enter the new law, H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In Section 24220, Congress "finds" it necessary to require new cars to include drunk and impaired driving technology. The question we should all have asked was, is that a power vested in the government of the United States?

Episode #59 Today we continue with the latest video for my ongoing series "Today In Supreme Court History" with the second installment in a three part series I am doing on the foundational Constitutional law case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) A case which is considered by some of our most prominent lawyers, jurists & scholars to be the most important case in the corpus of constitutional law. People like Rob Natelson, Randy Barnett, Josh Blackman, David Schwartz. As well as not so prominent constitutional scholars like me. I endorse this view of this case. Episode One: Was a case brief on the with the historical and legal background relevant to the case. Episode Two: We will be examining the role the Necessary & Proper Clause plays in this case, as well as a deep dive into the Original Public Meaning of the Necessary & Proper Clause Part Three: Will be the legacy of McCulloch right up to today & why it is that the bad reputation this case has for constitutional conservatives who see McCulloch as the source of nearly unlimited federal power under the United States,. We will discuss how and why that reputation is largely unfair and inaccurate. This episode covers:: ►00:00 Introduction ►01:00 Textual Analysis of "Necessary" and "Proper" ►05:10 Original Meaning Of The Clause & The Three Great Purposes ►10:30 Interpretation of Necessary & Proper In McCulloch v Maryland ►23:27 Conclusion On The Original Meaning of Necessary and Proper Episode on Legal Tender Cases (1871) - https://youtu.be/tQYaftCQJ3c Court Opinion In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/ Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58¤cy_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Does the "Necessary and Proper Clause" in our Constitution restrict our freedom? The Anti-Federalists thought so.  This was a major debate among the founding fathers and it still rages on today. Join our panel and special guest Professor Joerg Knipprath of Southwestern Law School as we discuss the anti-federalists concerns about the U.S. Constitution, including the “necessary and proper clause,” the nature of a republic; republic vs. democracy; and what Hamilton meant by “The Improved Science of Politics.” How is all of this relevant today? Listen and find out!

In the biggest case since Marbury, the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland offers up the first glimpse at the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Supreme Court of the United States. Listen to see where Chief Justice John Marshall stands with regards to the use of a national bank. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/aaron-larson2/support

On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The fourth panel covered "The Appropriation Power and the Necessary and Proper Clause."Featuring:William Barr, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of JusticeLouis Fisher, Congressional Research ServiceProf. Geoffrey Miller, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Kate Stith, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Summary  In this eighth episode of Season 4 of Vital Remnants, McConnell Center Director Dr. Gary L. Gregg II takes readers through Federalist 37-46 and eights writings from the Anti-Federalists in Reflection and Choice: The Federalists, The Anti-Federalists, and the Debate that Defined America, edited by Gary L. Gregg II and Aaron N. Coleman.  Dr. Gregg discusses the Federalists' argument for the structure of power outlined in the U.S. Constitution and its approach the tension between states and the proposed federal government. This section also covers the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Anti-Federalists' perspective on federalism is discussed at length in episode 9 of Vital Remnants.  Corresponding Reading   Section 7, pp. 243-324 of Gary L. Gregg II and Aaron N. Coleman, Reflection and Choice: The Federalists, The Anti-Federalists, and the Debate that Defined America.  Important Links  Download the corresponding Reading Guide to Reflection and Choice here.  Learn more about Reflection and Choice at https://louisville.edu/mcconnellcenter/reflection  Purchase Reflection and Choice from ButlerBooks.com (Constitution Day Sale Price of $29.97) or Amazon.com ($49.95) Wholesale (bulk) discounts are available through orders@butlerbooks.com.  Subscribe to our newsletter and receive McConnell Center updates directly in your mailbox. Please share any thoughts, questions, comments, or concerns with us via email at connor.tracy@louisville.edu.    This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. For more information, including upcoming events, please visit us online at mcconnellcenter.org or on social media at:  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter   Instagram: @ulmcenter   Twitter: @ULmCenter  Contributors  Host: Dr. Gary L. Gregg II, McConnell Center Director  Producer and Editor: Connor Tracy, McConnell Center SBS Coordinator   Co-Editor: Will Randolph, McConnell Scholar  

Supporters of the monster state want you to believe that Necessary and Proper means “anything and everything.” But James Madison rejected this kind of view throughout his career, reinforcing the view that “Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.” Path to Liberty: November 23, […] The post James Madison on the Necessary and Proper Clause first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center Blog.

As we are going through a Pluto transit, we will be dealing with the Constitution and the Constitution's nuclear issues (religious freedom, religious liberty, property law, personhood.) Join Linda as she talks about all of these issues and their historical development and significance. Transcript of Episode Supreme Court case on Gay Marriage Standing Rock Ideas on freedom from Representative John Lewis New, global methods for interpreting the Constitution The Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution Dred Scott Obergefell V Hodges Roe v Wade

What powers does Congress have under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause? Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center joins us to discuss the landmark Supreme Court cases on this issue. Learn more at https://fedsoc.org/no86.

What powers rightfully belong to the federal government and what is reserved for the states? Professor Gary Lawson of Boston University School of Law joins us to discuss the term “necessary and proper” and how it is a constitutional protection for federalism. Learn more at https://fedsoc.org/no86.

Though the United States, as a constitutional republic, is considered to be a “limited government,” it often doesn’t feel that way. Washington keeps churning out law after law regarding what the state may do and what the individual may not. The fault for this is often laid at the feet of the Founders for including the “Necessary and Proper Clause” in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But is that blame just? Or have politicians through the years simply used it as an excuse to do what they wanted, regardless of what the Constitution says? Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they talk about this and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Judge convicts volunteers Nancy Pelosi on inequality Foolishness of the week Wealth tax Senators’ oath of office Topic of the week: Diversity Officers and Administrative Bloat in Higher Education How much of government shuts down? Article 1, Section 8 10th Amendment 16th Amendment Wickard v. Filburn Join the conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Words & Numbers Backstage

Law Talk has hit the century mark! And as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo open up the faculty lounge for their 100th episode, they're taking listener questions. After a brief analysis of the situation in Charlottesville, they tackle everything from the Necessary and Proper Clause to the best Chinese food in Connecticut. Along the way, they relitigate the Civil War, explore the secrets to Richard's marital success, debate judicial review, weigh the merits of a new constitutional convention, and sneak in the first ever Law Talk analysis of the O.J. trial.Sponsored by Casper, RXBARJoin the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/law-talk/100-law-talk/.Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/join/.Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Law Talk has hit the century mark! And as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo open up the faculty lounge for their 100th episode, they're taking listener questions. After a brief analysis of the situation in Charlottesville, they tackle everything from the Necessary and Proper Clause to the best Chinese food in Connecticut. Along the way, they relitigate the Civil War, explore the secrets to Richard's marital success, debate judicial review, weigh the merits of a new constitutional convention, and sneak in the first ever Law Talk analysis of the O.J. trial.Sponsored by Casper, RXBARJoin the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/law-talk/100-law-talk/.Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/join/.Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

http://learntruehistory.com Necessary and Proper does not mean "you can do anything you want to do." Listeners have asked for this type of show, so here you go. I cover the original intent of the "Necessary and Proper Clause," and some general language about the Constitution. Your "living Constitution" friends will hate the episode because I destroy their arguments. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

The Supreme Court's federalism battleground has recently shifted from the Commerce Clause to two textually marginal but substantively important domains: the Necessary and Proper Clause and, to a lesser extent, the General Welfare Clause. For nearly a decade, these quieter, more structurally ambiguous federal powers – the “shadow powers” – have steadily increased in prominence. Paradoxically, the growth of shadow powers analysis has tended to narrow the permissible scope of congressional regulatory power. The invocation of the shadow powers has helped the Court find room to maneuver within its federalism analysis, while also appearing to maintain its commitment to an apparently unmoving baseline of a narrow commerce power. This maneuvering might be productive if it were carried out explicitly, with some discussion by the Court of the reasons for preferring to adjudicate federalism at its doctrinal and textual periphery rather than at its center. But the result of the growth of shadow powers analysis has in fact been to obscure the outlines of federalism's map. Alison LaCroix is Professor of Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Teaching Scholar at the Law School. She is also an associate member of the University of Chicago Department of History. LaCroix received her BA summa cum laude in history from Yale University in 1996 and her JD from Yale Law School in 1999. She received her PhD in history from Harvard University in 2007 after earning an AM in history from Harvard in 2003. While in law school, LaCroix served as essays editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. From 1999 to 2001, she practiced in the litigation department at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York. Before joining the Law School faculty in 2006, she was a Samuel I. Golieb Fellow in Legal History at New York University School of Law. This talk was recorded on January 28, 2015, as part of the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series.

The Supreme Court's federalism battleground has recently shifted from the Commerce Clause to two textually marginal but substantively important domains: the Necessary and Proper Clause and, to a lesser extent, the General Welfare Clause. For nearly a decade, these quieter, more structurally ambiguous federal powers – the “shadow powers” – have steadily increased in prominence. Paradoxically, the growth of shadow powers analysis has tended to narrow the permissible scope of congressional regulatory power. The invocation of the shadow powers has helped the Court find room to maneuver within its federalism analysis, while also appearing to maintain its commitment to an apparently unmoving baseline of a narrow commerce power. This maneuvering might be productive if it were carried out explicitly, with some discussion by the Court of the reasons for preferring to adjudicate federalism at its doctrinal and textual periphery rather than at its center. But the result of the growth of shadow powers analysis has in fact been to obscure the outlines of federalism's map. Alison LaCroix is Professor of Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Teaching Scholar at the Law School. She is also an associate member of the University of Chicago Department of History. LaCroix received her BA summa cum laude in history from Yale University in 1996 and her JD from Yale Law School in 1999. She received her PhD in history from Harvard University in 2007 after earning an AM in history from Harvard in 2003. While in law school, LaCroix served as essays editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. From 1999 to 2001, she practiced in the litigation department at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York. Before joining the Law School faculty in 2006, she was a Samuel I. Golieb Fellow in Legal History at New York University School of Law. This talk was recorded on January 28, 2015, as part of the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series.

Rob Natelson, the Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, is one of America’s best-known constitutional scholars. In opinions issued during the most recent U.S. Supreme Court term, he was cited 12 times in two separate cases. In 2012, parts of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion on the “Obamacare” health care law closely tracked Rob’s original research on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

A case in which the Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to create federal crimes and regulate their punishment, as well as apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) on a defendant.

Ever heard that one about death and taxes? This one will be about what is necessary, taxes, and birth.  This morning we continue the 25 Myths of the Constitution: Myth #17: The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the federal government to pass any law it deems necessary and proper. Myth #18: The Constitution Ensures No Taxation Without Representation. Myth #19: Being Born in the United States Satisfies the Definition of Natural Born Citizen.  

Myth #17: The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the federal government to pass any law it deems necessary and proper. Through the Constitution With Douglas V. Gibbs