Did the "elastic clause" justify acts such as Hamilton's excise tax or the Louisiana Purchase?
359777
I wouldn't look to the elastic clause for either of these.  The Louisiana Purchase would fall under article 2, second 2, presidential power to make treaties and the excise tax would fall under article 1, second 2, the power of congress to direct taxes.\n\nOn the other hand, I'm curious how homeland security can tape your phone without a warrant just because they suspect you of something.  I haven't found where that clause is yet.
870257
The "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8 (and various amendments) basically allows Congress to go beyond the literal text of its enumerated powers, and enact related laws that support those enumerated goals.\n\nIn a strict interpretation, only those laws directly related to the goals, and neither over or under inclusive, would be permitted. In other words, only the most absolutely necessary laws are allowed.\n\nIn a loose interpretation, any law that is "rationally related" to those goals is permitted. This is the current interpretation, and has been for most of the past century. That's also why the federal government has passed countless laws that are barely linked at all to constitutional mandates. But since Congress can argue that there is some rational connection, no matter how faint, they survive constitutional scrutiny.\n\nHere's a simple example. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the means by which it is conducted.\n\nIn a strict interpretation, this allows them to deal with interstate taxes, and to pay to support interstate roads, and to deal with interstate fraud crimes. But that's it. Anything that happens within one state, or anything that is not directly a commercial transaction between parties in different states, would be off limits.\n\nIn a loose interpretation, Congress can regulate any activity that has any impact whatsoever on interstate commerce. So, they can regulate how much food you grow in your personal garden, even if it's only for your own personal consumption, because the cumulative effect of everyone having their own garden would have an overall cumulative impact on interstate commerce (this is an actual Supreme Court case). \n\nAlso in a loose interpretation, Congress can forbid racial discrimination in any public restaurant or lodging house, because the net cumulative effect of racial discrimination would alter tourism and travel habits, which would have some impact on the overall national interstate commerce practices.\n\nThe issue is how closely the regulated activity needs to be to the enumerated goals that Congress is allowed to pursue. Strict interpretation requires a very close direct link. The current loose interpretation allows pretty much anything.
1182733
They weren't - that's the reason they had the Boston Tea Party, with the slogan, "no taxation without representation".  The British were taxing everything (including tea) but the American colonies had no say in how much the tax would be or what it would be used for.
102718
The commerce clause deals with interstate interests while the police power deals with in state interests. For awhile it seemed like congress was overruning the state powers until about 1998 when it decided that congress had carried it too far and required that the constitutional standard for rational basis be met as more than lip service.
954192
Taxation without representation.\n\nForced quartering.\n\nRestrictive land movement.
900356
No.  But it was promised because of their complaints that the Consitution lacked basic protections.  It was drafted by James Madison
1169301
I can find no law by that name, but the idea you are talking about seems to be enshrined in case law:\n\nThose beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. \n\nNor do we consider it unreasonable for the State to dispense with more certain notice to those beneficiaries whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge of the common trustee. Whatever searches might be required in another situation under ordinary standards of diligence, in view of the character of the proceedings and the nature of the interests here involved we think them unnecessary. We recognize the practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral; and we have no doubt that such impracticable and extended searches are not required in the [339 U.S. 306, 318]   name of due process. The expense of keeping informed from day to day of substitutions among even current income beneficiaries and presumptive remaindermen, to say nothing of the far greater number of contingent beneficiaries, would impose a severe burden on the plan, and would likely dissipate its advantages. These are practical matters in which we should be reluctant to disturb the judgment of the state authorities. \n\nAccordingly we overrule appellant's constitutional objections to published notice insofar as they are urged on behalf of any beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the trustee.
741715
U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment \nSixteenth Amendment - Income Tax \n\nThe Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
638898
The flexibility of the Constitution was used argument by some of the key architects for its passage.  I highly recommend that you get a copy of the Federalist Papers, a series of articles written under by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.  \n\nThe entire purpose of The Federalist Papers  was to gain popular support for the then-proposed Constitution. Some would call it the most significant public-relations campaign in history; it is, in fact, studied in many public relations classes as a prime example of how to conduct a successful campaign.
864464
Marbury v. Madison.  But the fact is, the Tenth Amendment was then and has been violated with this "supremacy."  The federal jurisdiction was supposed to be limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.
1082537
Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginians Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked out a compromise that permitted southern Members to support assumption of the national dept, if northern Members did not block the effort to locate the permanent seat of government on the Potomac River. Congress had been deadlocked over the issue of funding the national dept. Most northern states wanted the federal government to assume the states' debts, while most southern states opposed assumption.
901614
I watched only long enough to see it was about the 16th amendment not being legally ratified, and therefore we didn't have to pay income tax.  \n\nI refer you to this page to see a response.  The final rebuttal is at the bottom.  \nhttp://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
282487
Louisana Purchase was a pretty successful move.\nI'm not sure if it rates as a failure, but the vice president shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Thank goodness they don't turn VPs loose with guns anymore.
80534
There were issues regarding the Brittish Crown's decision to have the Colonies of America pay for the French & Indian War.  This led to an outcry of "Taxation without Representation," the notion that Americans were being taxed by the Brittish Parlaiment without the American's voices being officially heard during the consideration.  \nAs a result, many started toying with the idea of independent rule.  This led to many other events and eventually the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.  David McCullough's 1776 is a great book to use as a guide.
1046875
Yes, they are standard clauses. But don't worry...they are rarely enforceable. People need to earn a living, and the law recognizes that.
114028
Wrong, Napoleon did sell louisiana for $15 million, but he only sold it because he and France were at war with England and Napoleon did not want the territory to be a bargaining chip during and/or after the war.