Question

What did the Court say about the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch v.

Maryland and US v. Comstock? What did it say about the General Welfare Clause in

U.S. v. Butler and Helvering v. Davis?

Answer 1

The Necessary and Proper Clause, popularly known as the elastic clause, is a part of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which reads as under:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This was discussed in the case McCulloh vs Marryland case by the Supreme court of America. The facts of the case are as follows:

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. One of the Cashier of Baltimore branch Mr.James W. McCulloch, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank. The Supreme court in this case held in a unanimous decision, that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.

The Chief Justice Marshall observed that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause Article . I, Section 8,. Marshall made it clear that “necessary” means “appropriate and legitimate,” covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the powers and given by constitution. He l also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, but the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of them are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.

In US vs Butler case the facts are as under

Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the government claimed cotton taxes from respondent receivers and the receivers recommended that the claim be disallowed. The government argued that the Act was valid because Congress was authorized to appropriate and authorize spending for the "general welfare" under U.S. Const. art. I, Section 9, cl. 7, and that the Act was an effort to aid farmers during the great depression. The district court found the taxes valid and ordered them paid, but the it was revered by United States Circuit Court of Appeals on an appeal. Then the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The issue before the court was whether the Agriculture Tax is valid. The Court held that while the Act might have been within Congress' power if it fell within the ambit of the term "general welfare," the Court did not have to reach the question of the interpretation of that whether it did so because the Act was unconstitutional on other grounds. The Act was clearly designed to regulate agriculture by coercing a non-cooperating minority to a desired action with economic pressure. However, the power to regulate agriculture was not granted to Congress by the Constitution, but rather, was reserved to the States. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, were possibly permissible means to an unconstitutional end. Thus, Congress had no power to enforce its commands on the farmer to the ends sought by the Act, and it could not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance.

U.S. Const. art. I, Section 8, cl. 1 confers upon the Congress power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. The true construction of this clause undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.

In Helvering v Davis, case of 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act enacted in 1935. As per the Court ruling the Social Security Program to provide old age benefits did not violate the Tenth Amendment because Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare . The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier held that Title II of the Social Security was void as an invasion of powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states or to the people. In addition to another reason for invalidating the tax upon employers, the court held that it was not an excise as was understood when the Constitution was adopted. But the Supreme Court by a vote of 7-2, reversed it. It observed that the scheme of ‘Federal Old-Age Benefits’ set up by Title II of the Social Security Act does not contravene the limitations of the Tenth Amendment.” It further held that tax on employers “is an excise tax and thus within the power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution.”

The Court also emphasized that Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare.” the word of Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in this case can be mentioned as under :

“The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.”

It was further concluded that the concept of “general welfare” is not static in nature, but changes itself to the crises and necessities of the times. The problem of security for the aged, like other general problems. is national as well local