what is the strict versusloose interpretation and the necessary and proper clause of the constitution?

Answer 1

The "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8 (and various amendments) basically allows Congress to go beyond the literal text of its enumerated powers, and enact related laws that support those enumerated goals.

In a strict interpretation, only those laws directly related to the goals, and neither over or under inclusive, would be permitted. In other words, only the most absolutely necessary laws are allowed.

In a loose interpretation, any law that is "rationally related" to those goals is permitted. This is the current interpretation, and has been for most of the past century. That's also why the federal government has passed countless laws that are barely linked at all to constitutional mandates. But since Congress can argue that there is some rational connection, no matter how faint, they survive constitutional scrutiny.

Here's a simple example. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the means by which it is conducted.

In a strict interpretation, this allows them to deal with interstate taxes, and to pay to support interstate roads, and to deal with interstate fraud crimes. But that's it. Anything that happens within one state, or anything that is not directly a commercial transaction between parties in different states, would be off limits.

In a loose interpretation, Congress can regulate any activity that has any impact whatsoever on interstate commerce. So, they can regulate how much food you grow in your personal garden, even if it's only for your own personal consumption, because the cumulative effect of everyone having their own garden would have an overall cumulative impact on interstate commerce (this is an actual Supreme Court case).

Also in a loose interpretation, Congress can forbid racial discrimination in any public restaurant or lodging house, because the net cumulative effect of racial discrimination would alter tourism and travel habits, which would have some impact on the overall national interstate commerce practices.

The issue is how closely the regulated activity needs to be to the enumerated goals that Congress is allowed to pursue. Strict interpretation requires a very close direct link. The current loose interpretation allows pretty much anything.