The Elastic Clause: A Driving Force in America

When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, it was an immense improvement on the existing doctrine of law, The Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the states were held together in a loose confederation through common interests. The states held almost all power while the national government’s power existed only to make war or peace or to pursue opportunities for the better of all the states. Without power, the central government was not able to fund its activities and could not properly protect the people. As a result the Constitution was created, a doctrine that redefined both the government of America, and many government’s of the world.

Why was this new doctrine better for America than that of the articles of Confederation? The Constitution centralized power while also leaving the states rights to make their own decisions on many issues and to keep their identity. It also implemented many new elements to the national government such as the House of representatives and the Senate, the President, and a Supreme Court. All of these branches were given checks and balances on one another meaning one could not operate without consent of another. This was set up in this way in order to quell the fear of those who believed that centralizing government was tyrannical.

Despite it’s major advancements from the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution was nowhere near flawless. In fact many things we value the most in America, were contradicted or omitted by the original constitution. When the Constitution was first prepared there was no written protection of individual liberty, a luxury that Americans take for granted nowadays. In addition there was no protection for minorities or women. Blacks, who were mostly slaves at this point, would not be part of the freedom that this document strove for. Instead, they were mentioned in the Constitution only to protect the practice of slavery. The constitution stated that 1) slaves would count as 3/5s of a person in population counts, 2) there could be no enactments against slave trade till 1808, and 3) non-slave states were required to return runaway slaves to owners. For women and minorities it was made clear that they did not have the right to vote and did not share liberties with white males. Even those who could vote did not hold as much political power as the common voter does today. The Constitution was set up in part to keep politics with those who were the most educated. As a result, the original electoral college was actually a group of men elected by state legislature who single-handily voted for the president.

How, with these flaws, has the constitution continued to survive and be the framework of our government today? This is in large part due to the Elastic Clause. With the ability given by the Elastic Clause to amend the constitution, America has been able to continue to develop an ever changing set of laws and social contracts, based on new ideas, new ways of solving problems and a growing diverse society based on the ideal of freedom for all. Starting with the first 10 Amendments, which laid out the undeniable rights and liberties of all Americans, Amendments to the constitution have made humongous strides to creating a better government. Without the possibility to revisit issues in the Constitution and change if a better or more just option is possible and wanted by the people, our country would not be as progressive as it is today. The Elastic Clause is one of the factors that had allowed for a government as complicated as ours, to function and grow. For this reason I believe that our democracy does work.

5 Responses to "The Elastic Clause: A Driving Force in America"

Matthew Lidz says:

September 14, 2017 at 3:23 pm

Daniel, while I agree that the elastic clause has given Congress the ability to make new laws to respond to changing times. However, it seems like you are confusing the elastic clause with the the amendment process for the Constitution. The elastic or necessary and proper clause is found under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution while the amendment process to the Constitution is found under Article 5. The elastic clause does not give Congress the ability to amend the Constitution. That is an entirely different set of powers described in a different article of the Constitution.

I also think that you give too much credit to the elastic clause, and by extension the federal government for the progress that has been made over the years. Federalism is another reason why the Constitution has proven to be so durable over the last 220 years. Federalism allows states to reserve some power for itself to manage its own affairs instead of giving all power to the federal government. Individual state’s role as the laboratories of democracy allow for Congress to see what policy does and does not work.

It seems too simplistic to credit the longevity of the Constitution to one sentence in the first article
Omar Ibrahim says:

September 15, 2017 at 3:22 pm

One of the last points you make is about the survival of the Constitution, but a point that can be brought up is how successful it is adjusting to an evolving society. There have only been 27 amendments since 1787, with the last one being ratified in 1992. According to Thomas Jefferson “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” This is left up to many different interpretations, which could include the lack of amendments passed, and may be considered a failure to Madison’s standards.

Another point to be made is how elastic the “Elastic Clause” is itself. Passing laws seem increasingly difficult and the development of factions in forms of political parties has polarized the ideologies of the nation. As Fox News stated, “Americans, right and left, give up on the Constitution whenever it gets in the way of policies they like.” which raises the question of whether or not the population should take the advice of James Madison?

It seems as if the Constitution is being bent so it doesn’t break, but is the break necessary for the forward movement of the country?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/does-our-constitution-still-work.htmlhttps://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/little-rebellionquotation
Alyssa Holt says:

September 17, 2017 at 4:45 pm

I definitely agree that the ability to amend the constitution has played a significant role in keeping the U.S. stable and progressive. Without amendments the constitution has pieces that are out of date and no longer relevant to the country’s current culture. I think it is also interesting though to consider what would happen without the ability to amend the constitution. On one hand, our society could be filled with more suppression and hate then it is today. On the other hand we could have progressed enough to have a new document to dictate the country’s foundation.
I’m not saying I believe we should get rid of the constitution and write a new one that is more current, i simply think that it’s interesting to consider. They did rewrite their guidelines from the Articles of Confederation, and create the constitution, which was ultimately more successful for the country at that time. With each amendment the constitution is updated to better meet our countries current culture but what if we just wrote a new one that accounted for all of these changes, like they did in 1788.
Austin Liptrot says:

September 17, 2017 at 9:47 pm

Dan you make some strong points that I agree with. The constitution continuously requires the help of amendments and lawmaking to create an adequate government to match our changing society. You talked about some serious shortcomings of the constitution when you mentioned how slavery was written into the document which obviously needed to be changed, but left out arguably one of the greatest achievements of the clause in the creation of the national bank. The ratification of the bank which while a heated issue at the time, has proven to be necessary for our national improvement. However, I believe that the clause also has a number of shortcomings that you left out. People believed that the clause hadn’t actually explicitly given the government any more power than it previously had, and that the clause was a repetition of powers previously stated.
Jackson Grace says:

September 18, 2017 at 1:04 pm

Honestly, there’s not much I can criticize about your analysis. You do a great job explaining how the constitution remains central to our government despite being flawed originally. I also appreciate how you respect the sanctity of the original 10 amendments and the importance of rights-based democracy. There are some things that just shouldn’t be changed. For if we do, we could lose it all. The framers were very careful about wording, as evidenced by their sneaky language with the 3/5’s compromise, and were very intentional about specifying exactly what our rights entitle us to in the Bill of Rights. Obviously, some things need to change and still need to change. That is why the Elastic Clause was included. The framers definitely meant for the constitution to evolve over time. They didn’t want it to be easy to change, hence the necessity of a 2/3’s majority etc., but they knew that the document would one day need to be revised. It was written to unify a loose confederation that didn’t work, as you mention, and some compromises had to be made to pull together the 13 states. Some of these compromises needed to be addressed and were with amendments. Others must remain untouched. All-in-all, good analysis.

Comments are closed.