necessary and proper clause

I have some questions about that clause in the US Constitution.

Does it give Congress the power to make any law it pleases, and why was it put in there in the first place? Has it served any purposes throughout our history (I know of the National Bank)
Is there any criteria used to determine if a law is “necessary,” “proper”?

Could you be more vague? I think some people might be able to figure out what you’re talking about.

Is there a debate here? You might want to try posting this in GQ instead of GD.

In any case, a Google search of the phrase “necessary and proper clause” turned up a few links which might be useful. Here is one place to start.FindLaw also has some info on the clause. Hope it helps.

The “necessary and proper” clause has generally been interpreted in connection with the previous sixteen or so clauses, all of which spell out specific topics on which the Congress is empowered to pass laws, cause to happen, etc. For example, the Constitution does not explicitly give the power to exercise eminent domain. But suppose an Army base needs expansion, and nobody adjacent is interested in selling. Or suppose a post office needs building in a new suburb, and the developer, who does not suffer from an excess of scruples and who knows Uncle Sam has deep pockets, has a site reserved for it which he’ll be glad to sell for $2,000,000, undeveloped. To expand the base or get the land for the Post Office is obviously “necessary and proper” to the two activities that are specifically spelled out as “delegated powers” of the national government. So the government can exercise eminent domain under the “necessary and proper” clause.

McCulloch vs. Maryland might give you the best definition of it as it has historically been understood to apply.