Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1684301
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (126)



 


 



Taking Stock of Comstock: The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Limits of Federal Power


Ilya Somin


George Mason University School of Law

September 28, 2010

Cato Supreme Court Review, pp. 239-268, 2009-2010
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 10-48

Abstract:     
Those who argue that the federal government has nearly unlimited authority often cite the Necessary and Proper Clause. That clause gives Congress the 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.” The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Comstock is a step in the direction of interpreting the clause as a virtual blank check for Congress to regulate almost any activity it wants. But the decision is vague on several key points, and its long-term effects are difficult to predict.

Part I of this article discusses Section 4248 of the Adam Walsh Act, the provision the Court upheld in Comstock. It also summarizes the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. Part II criticizes the Court’s reasoning. The majority’s extremely broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause may render much of the careful enumeration of congressional power in Article I of the Constitution superfluous. In addition, it tries to link the statute to a nebulous congressional authority to act as a “custodian” for federal prisoners that is itself not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

Part III considers the implications of Comstock for the future. The decision could strengthen the government’s case in the ongoing litigation over the massive health care bill passed by Congress in March 2010. Comstock’s broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause could be used to buttress the government’s constitutional justifications for the new health care law’s “individual mandate.” But the mandate might run afoul of the vague five-factor test that was a key element of Comstock. The ultimate impact of the decision may depend on how that test is interpreted and applied.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Keywords: Anthony Kennedy, Commerce, Detention, Elena Kagan, Gonzales v. Raich, Greenwood, John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Marshall, M’Culloch v. Maryland, National Federation Independent Business, Rational Basis, Samuel Alito, Exually Dangerous Former Federal Prisoners, State Interest, Stephen Breyer

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 29, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Somin, Ilya, Taking Stock of Comstock: The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Limits of Federal Power (September 28, 2010). Cato Supreme Court Review, pp. 239-268, 2009-2010; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 10-48. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1684301

Contact Information

Ilya Somin (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
703-993-8069 (Phone)
703-993-8124 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,171
Downloads: 371
Download Rank: 42,486
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  126

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.687 seconds