Why This Matters
Understanding legislative powers is essential because they define the boundaries of what Congress can and cannot do—and those boundaries are constantly being tested in court. You're being tested on how the Constitution allocates power between Congress and the states, between Congress and the President, and how the Supreme Court has interpreted these allocations over time. The key concepts here include enumerated powers, implied powers, federalism, preemption, and separation of powers.
Don't just memorize which clause does what. For every power, know the constitutional source, the leading case that defined its scope, and the limiting principle that courts have identified. Exam questions—especially FRQs—will ask you to apply these doctrines to new fact patterns, so you need to understand the reasoning behind landmark decisions, not just their holdings.
Enumerated Powers: Congress's Express Constitutional Authority
The Constitution explicitly grants Congress specific powers in Article I, Section 8. These enumerated powers form the baseline of congressional authority, though their scope has been shaped dramatically by judicial interpretation.
Commerce Clause
- Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants Congress power to regulate commerce "among the several States"—the single most litigated source of federal authority
- Wickard v. Filburn (1942) established the "substantial effects" test, allowing regulation of purely local activities that in the aggregate affect interstate commerce
- United States v. Lopez (1995) marked the first modern limit, holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded commerce power because it regulated non-economic activity with no jurisdictional hook
Taxing and Spending Power
- Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 authorizes taxes and spending for the "general welfare"—a power broader than Congress's regulatory authority
- South Dakota v. Dole (1987) permits conditional spending but requires conditions to be unambiguous, related to the federal interest, and not coercive
- NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) found the Medicaid expansion's threatened loss of all existing funding crossed the line into unconstitutional coercion of states
War Powers
- Article I, Section 8 grants Congress authority to declare war, raise armies, and regulate military forces—distinct from the President's Commander-in-Chief role
- War Powers Resolution (1973) requires presidential notification within 48 hours and withdrawal within 60-90 days absent congressional authorization
- Constitutional tension persists because presidents routinely engage in military action without formal declarations, claiming inherent executive authority
Compare: Commerce Clause vs. Taxing and Spending Power—both expand federal reach, but spending power can achieve goals beyond Congress's regulatory authority (as in Dole). If an FRQ asks how Congress can influence state policy without direct regulation, conditional spending is your answer.
Implied Powers: The Necessary and Proper Clause
The Necessary and Proper Clause transforms Congress from an institution with only express powers into one capable of adapting to circumstances the Framers couldn't anticipate. This is the constitutional engine of federal expansion.
Necessary and Proper Clause
- Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 authorizes laws "necessary and proper" for executing enumerated powers—also called the Elastic Clause or Sweeping Clause
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established that "necessary" means useful or conducive to, not absolutely essential, giving Congress broad discretion in choosing means
- The clause requires a legitimate end within enumerated powers and means that are rationally related—courts rarely second-guess Congress's choice of means
Delegation of Legislative Authority
- Non-delegation doctrine requires Congress to provide an "intelligible principle" when delegating authority to executive agencies
- Mistretta v. United States (1989) upheld the Sentencing Commission, finding sufficient guidance in the statutory framework—the doctrine has teeth but rarely bites
- Recent cases signal potential revival; Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have called for stricter enforcement of non-delegation limits
Compare: Necessary and Proper Clause vs. Delegation Doctrine—both involve congressional flexibility, but N&P expands what Congress can do while delegation concerns who exercises legislative power. The intelligible principle test is the key limiting doctrine for delegation questions.
Federalism Constraints: Limits on Congressional Power
Congressional power doesn't exist in a vacuum—it operates within a federal system where states retain significant authority. These doctrines define the boundaries between federal and state power.
Tenth Amendment and Reserved Powers
- "Powers not delegated... are reserved to the States"—this isn't an independent limit but a reminder that federal power must derive from an enumerated source
- New York v. United States (1992) established the anti-commandeering doctrine: Congress cannot compel state legislatures to enact federal regulatory programs
- Printz v. United States (1997) extended anti-commandeering to state executive officials, invalidating mandatory background check requirements for local sheriffs
Preemption Doctrine
- Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes that valid federal law trumps conflicting state law—preemption is the mechanism for resolving conflicts
- Express preemption occurs when Congress explicitly displaces state law; implied preemption arises from field occupation or direct conflict with federal objectives
- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) first applied preemption, invalidating New York's steamboat monopoly as conflicting with federal coastal licensing
Compare: Tenth Amendment vs. Preemption—the Tenth Amendment asks whether Congress has any authority to act, while preemption assumes valid federal power and asks whether state law must yield. Anti-commandeering is the key Tenth Amendment doctrine; conflict and field occupation are the key preemption theories.
Separation of Powers: Checking Executive Authority
Legislative powers don't just define Congress's relationship with states—they also establish Congress's role in checking presidential power and maintaining institutional balance.
Treaty Power
- Article II, Section 2 requires Senate advice and consent by two-thirds vote for treaties—a significant check on presidential foreign relations authority
- Missouri v. Holland (1920) held that treaties can authorize legislation beyond Congress's enumerated powers, potentially expanding federal authority over states
- Self-executing vs. non-self-executing treaties determines whether additional implementing legislation is required for domestic legal effect
Congressional Oversight and Investigative Powers
- Implied from legislative function—Congress needs information to legislate effectively and check executive overreach
- McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) confirmed inherent power to investigate, including authority to compel testimony and hold witnesses in contempt
- Executive privilege creates tension; United States v. Nixon (1974) recognized the privilege but held it must yield to demonstrated specific need in criminal proceedings
Separation of Powers
- Structural principle dividing authority among three branches—not explicitly stated but embedded throughout the Constitution
- INS v. Chadha (1983) invalidated legislative vetoes, requiring bicameralism and presentment for all legislative action affecting legal rights
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) provides the framework for analyzing executive action: presidential power is at its maximum with congressional authorization, uncertain when Congress is silent, and at its lowest ebb when contrary to congressional will
Compare: Treaty Power vs. Congressional Oversight—both involve Congress checking the executive, but treaties require affirmative Senate consent before action while oversight operates after executive action through investigation and potential legislation. Know the Youngstown framework for any separation of powers question.
Quick Reference Table
|
| Commerce Power Expansion | Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich |
| Commerce Power Limits | United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison |
| Conditional Spending | South Dakota v. Dole, NFIB v. Sebelius |
| Implied Powers | McCulloch v. Maryland, Necessary and Proper Clause |
| Anti-Commandeering | New York v. United States, Printz v. United States |
| Preemption | Gibbons v. Ogden, Arizona v. United States |
| Non-Delegation | Mistretta v. United States, Whitman v. American Trucking |
| Separation of Powers | INS v. Chadha, Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer |
Self-Check Questions
-
Both the Commerce Clause and the Taxing and Spending Power allow Congress to influence state behavior. What can Congress achieve through conditional spending that it cannot achieve through commerce regulation alone?
-
Compare McCulloch v. Maryland and United States v. Lopez. How do these cases illustrate the tension between implied powers and enumerated powers limits?
-
A new federal statute requires state attorneys general to prosecute certain federal crimes. Under which doctrine would this be challenged, and what case provides the governing rule?
-
Explain the difference between express and implied preemption. If an FRQ describes a state law that doesn't directly contradict federal law but operates in a heavily regulated field, which theory applies?
-
Using the Youngstown framework, analyze when presidential military action is most constitutionally vulnerable. How does the War Powers Resolution fit into this analysis?