(tco 3) what must be limited according to limits of growth critics
The Limits to Growth Criticism of LTG was immediate. Peter Passell and two co-authors published a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as "...an empty and misleading work .... best summarized ... as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out." Passell found the study's simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources, and, finally, that the entire endeavor was motivated by a hidden agenda: to halt growth in its tracks.[17]
Enumerated powers Interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause has been controversial, especially during the early years of the republic. Strict constructionists interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, believe it is largely up to Congress and not the courts to determine what means are "necessary and proper" to executing one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; depending on the interpretation, it can be "stretched" to expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract", limiting Congress. In practical usage, the clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws.[5]