The necessary and proper clause is part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" for executing its powers. It has been used to expand greatly congressional power. It is a dramatically important part of the Constitution. Its use in court cases has varied through time. It has helped to make the Constitution adapt to the many social changes in the United States. However, it has also created a battleground of the uses of this elastic clause, which has been used to imply so many powers over the years.
The necessary and proper clause can be interpreted in two different ways. The federal government has used the clause to abuse its power. However, it was also implemented to apply the Constitution to the changing times. It created for fewer amendments into the Constitution.
The advocates of the interpretation of the elastic clause that gives more power to the federal government believe in a stronger central government. They broaden the powers of the federal government by using Clause 18 of the Constitution. This group feels that the federal government is using implied powers to do what is "necessary and proper" for the welfare of the citizens or in the public interest.
Other people against the elastic clause purport that the federal government uses the clause to abuse its powers. They consider it a convenient and useful tool for the federal government to apply powers that aren't expressed. These people are strongly for States" Rights. They take solace in the fact that the elastic clause can only give the federal government powers that are related to the enumerated powers. This limits the power of the federal government in some aspects.
In the case McCulloch v. Maryland, the federal government used the elastic clause to do what was "necessary and proper". It advocated the renewal of the charter for the Second National Bank. This was an important case for the necessary and proper clause because the court decision gave approval to this clause.