When is it that a statement supportive of freedom becomes an implement used to enslave others? An example such as this occurs with the inclusion of the Elastic Clause in the United States Constitution. As a consequence of its imperfections, the clause contributed fuel for dissent amongst politicians throughout the years, and irritates the counterbalance between anarchy and oligarchy long supported by the United States. Additionally, it leads to conflict not as a direct repercussion of the constriction of civilians or government, but due to the encouragement of concocting laws designed to benefit the citizens of this nation. Despite the objective, the outcome equated to tragedy, as it incapacitates Americans in an undetectable way.
Despite the turmoil emerging from the establishment of it, the Elastic Clause originated with reasonable intentions. Amid the inception of …show more content…
However, there are those that would argue that, despite its ambiguity, the clause still needs to exist in the Constitution. The Elastic Clause revolves around the concept that the legislative branch may eventually need to add a law that would benefit the country and its citizens as a whole. When phrased that way, the idea endures as completely reasonable one; an idea that could certainly provide help to the people of the United States. Despite its theoretical intrigue, the written form of the Elastic Clause contains excruciatingly vague details, failing to specify what laws couldn’t exist. At best, it specifies that newly formed laws must be “necessary and proper,” without further elaboration. As a result of not venturing into detail on the specifics of each law, the legislative branch currently possesses an excuse for increasing government power. In conclusion, the imperfection lies not in what the Elastic Clause specifies, but in what it fails to
Despite the turmoil emerging from the establishment of it, the Elastic Clause originated with reasonable intentions. Amid the inception of …show more content…
However, there are those that would argue that, despite its ambiguity, the clause still needs to exist in the Constitution. The Elastic Clause revolves around the concept that the legislative branch may eventually need to add a law that would benefit the country and its citizens as a whole. When phrased that way, the idea endures as completely reasonable one; an idea that could certainly provide help to the people of the United States. Despite its theoretical intrigue, the written form of the Elastic Clause contains excruciatingly vague details, failing to specify what laws couldn’t exist. At best, it specifies that newly formed laws must be “necessary and proper,” without further elaboration. As a result of not venturing into detail on the specifics of each law, the legislative branch currently possesses an excuse for increasing government power. In conclusion, the imperfection lies not in what the Elastic Clause specifies, but in what it fails to