As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not expand the scope of Congress's enumerated powers.

WSJ: Barnett and Foley: The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling

Judge Vinson flatly rejected the administration's attempt to escape the restrictions of the Commerce Clause by appealing to the Necessary and Proper Clause.

WSJ: Barnett and Foley: The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling

Recognizing the vulnerability of relying on the Commerce Clause alone, the Obama administration in the Florida case shifted its emphasis to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.

WSJ: Barnett and Foley: The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling

That decision endorses a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to do what it thinks necessary to implement its laws.

FORBES: Obamacare's Fate Hangs With Roberts, Not Kennedy

It (the ruling) stated that the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution was not meant to be used as it was applied by Congress when they passed the bill as is.

FORBES: Florida Court Rules Mandated Insurance Unconstitutional-So What?

For this reason, the mandate also cannot be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause, because that clause can effectuate only those powers that Congress actually possesses under the Commerce Clause, not create new ones.

FORBES: Obamacare Insurance Mandate - Another Circuit Heard From

And as I noted recently, none less than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court signed off on a quite expansive view of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the constitutional Swiss Army Knife that lets Congress do pretty much whatever it wants in the area of economic regulation.

FORBES: Florida Judge's ObamaCare Ruling Passionate, If Futile