| Revision as of 15:45, 30 November 2006 editSable232 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,774 edits rv vandalism← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:14, 3 July 2024 edit undoHistorianFromSyracuse (talk | contribs)176 edits GrammarTags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
| (465 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Powers implicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution}} | |||
| These powers give Congress flexibility when it comes to carrying out their powers. | |||
| In the ], '''implied powers''' are powers that, although not directly stated in the Constitution, are implied to be available based on previously stated powers. | |||
| ==History== | |||
| The Constitution, chiefly in the first three articles, delegates legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the national government. In addition to these express powers, such as the power to appropriate funds, Congress has assumed constitutionally implied powers, such as the power to create banks, which are inferred from express powers. | |||
| ⚫ | When ] asked ] to defend the constitutionality of the ] against the protests<ref>They implied powers into the united states......., Thomas Jefferson.</ref> of ], ], and Attorney General ], Hamilton produced what has now become the doctrine of implied powers.<ref>, Alexander Hamilton.</ref> Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, 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 "]" and the "]" gave elasticity to the Constitution. Hamilton won the argument and Washington signed the bank bill into law. | ||
| Another instance of the usage of implied powers was during the ], where, in 1803, the United States was offered the opportunity to purchase French territory in continental North America. James Monroe was sent by Thomas Jefferson to France to negotiate, with permission to spend up to $10 million on the port of ] and parts of ]. However, an agreement to purchase the entirety of continental French territory for $15 million was reached instead, even though this far exceeded the authorized $10 million spending cap. Although Jefferson’s decision to purchase the Louisiana territory would ultimately be widely popular, it was not known to constitutional lawyers, nor even to Jefferson himself, whether he had had the legal authority to negotiate the price of the territory (ultimately violating his stipulated budget) without the approval of Congress. In the end, the notion of implied powers was offered and accepted as justification for finishing the deal.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-louisiana-purchase-jeffersons-constitutional-gamble/ | title=The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's constitutional gamble - National Constitution Center }}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | ] |
||
| ==Case law== | |||
| Even Hamilton's enemy ] used the principle to justify his ] in 1803, and Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of ]. This was again used to justify the creation of a bank, the ] using the idea to argue the constitutionality of ]'s creating it in 1816. | |||
| Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice ] invoked the implied powers of government in the ] case, '']''.<ref>{{cite web |title=McCulloch v. Maryland Summary |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPdhWW6Bz-Q |website=quimbee.com |publisher=YouTube |access-date=29 March 2022}}</ref> In 1816, the ] passed legislation creating the ]. The state of Maryland attempted to tax the bank. The state argued the ] did not explicitly grant Congress the power to establish banks. In 1819, the Court decided against the state of Maryland. Chief Justice Marshall argued that Congress had the right to establish the bank, as the Constitution grants to Congress certain implied powers beyond those explicitly stated. | |||
| In the case of the United States Government, implied powers are powers Congress exercises that the Constitution does not explicitly define, but are necessary and proper to execute the powers. | |||
| The States and Anti-Federalists referred to the Taxing and Spending Clause and/or(?) the Necessary and Proper clause as the "Elastic Clause" because they felt it allowed the Federal Government to "stretch" its power to encompass almost any situation. | |||
| The legitimacy of these Congressional powers is derived from the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the ]. | |||
| Implied powers are those that can ] from express powers,<ref>Also outside President and Congress: for the Judiciary, see ''Incidental or Implied Powers of Federal Courts'', by Harris, Robert Jennings, Chapter II, 1 Judicial Power of the United States (1940).</ref> though not explicitly mentioned. | |||
| {{law-stub}} | |||
| ==International law== | |||
| ] | |||
| This theory has flown from domestic constitutional law<ref>Especially in the common law legal community: see Sagar Arun, ''Notes towards a Theory of Implied Powers in (Indian) Constitutional Law'', NUJS Law Review, Vol. 7, Issue 3-4 (2014), pp. 249-262.</ref> to ],<ref>''International Legal Personality and Implied Powers of International Organizations'', by Rama-Montaldo, Manuel, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 44, pp. 111-156 (1970).</ref> and European Union institutions have accepted the basics of the implied powers theory.<ref>Andrea Giardina, ''Rule of Law and Implied Powers in the European Communities'', The Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 1, pp. 99-111.</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ==See also== | |||
| *], ''implicit'' due process rights | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{Reflist}} | |||
| {{US Constitution}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 23:14, 3 July 2024
Powers implicitly authorized by the U.S. ConstitutionIn the United States, implied powers are powers that, although not directly stated in the Constitution, are implied to be available based on previously stated powers.
History
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 doctrine of implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, 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 and Washington signed the bank bill into law.
Another instance of the usage of implied powers was during the Louisiana Purchase, where, in 1803, the United States was offered the opportunity to purchase French territory in continental North America. James Monroe was sent by Thomas Jefferson to France to negotiate, with permission to spend up to $10 million on the port of New Orleans and parts of Florida. However, an agreement to purchase the entirety of continental French territory for $15 million was reached instead, even though this far exceeded the authorized $10 million spending cap. Although Jefferson’s decision to purchase the Louisiana territory would ultimately be widely popular, it was not known to constitutional lawyers, nor even to Jefferson himself, whether he had had the legal authority to negotiate the price of the territory (ultimately violating his stipulated budget) without the approval of Congress. In the end, the notion of implied powers was offered and accepted as justification for finishing the deal.
Case 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 to tax the bank. The state argued the United States Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress the power to establish banks. In 1819, the Court decided against the state of Maryland. Chief Justice Marshall argued that Congress had the right to establish the bank, as the Constitution grants to Congress certain implied powers beyond those explicitly stated.
In the case of the United States Government, implied powers are powers Congress exercises that the Constitution does not explicitly define, but are necessary and proper to execute the powers. The legitimacy of these Congressional powers is derived from the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause.
Implied powers are those that can reasonably be assumed to flow from express powers, though not explicitly mentioned.
International law
This theory has flown from domestic constitutional law to International law, and European Union institutions have accepted the basics of the implied powers theory.
See also
- Substantive due process, implicit due process rights
Notes
- They implied powers into the united states.......Against the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.
- For the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, Alexander Hamilton.
- "The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's constitutional gamble - National Constitution Center".
- "McCulloch v. Maryland Summary". quimbee.com. YouTube. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
- Also outside President and Congress: for the Judiciary, see Incidental or Implied Powers of Federal Courts, by Harris, Robert Jennings, Chapter II, 1 Judicial Power of the United States (1940).
- Especially in the common law legal community: see Sagar Arun, Notes towards a Theory of Implied Powers in (Indian) Constitutional Law, NUJS Law Review, Vol. 7, Issue 3-4 (2014), pp. 249-262.
- International Legal Personality and Implied Powers of International Organizations, by Rama-Montaldo, Manuel, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 44, pp. 111-156 (1970).
- Andrea Giardina, Rule of Law and Implied Powers in the European Communities, The Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 1, pp. 99-111.