U.S. v. Comstock (2010), Majority Opinion The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad authority to enact federal legislation. Nearly 200 years ago, ...Chief Justice Marshall emphasized that the word "necessary" does not mean "absolutely necessary." ... Congress has the implied power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an enumerated power... we must reject [the]argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress.... To be sure, as we have previously acknowledged, the Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government's role. The Framers demonstrated considerable foresight in drafting a Constitution capable of such resilience through time. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly 200 years ago, the Necessary and Proper Clause is part of "a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." How does this ruling interpret the necessary and Proper Clause? Who or what should be the one to do the "adapting" of the Constitution Chief Justice marshall referred to 200 years ago