Final answer:
Abridgment by placing limits on time, place, and manner of expression is true as long as it does not interfere with the substance of expression. Speech restrictions must be content neutral, not vague, and cannot involve prior restraint. The necessary and proper clause does not specifically aim to limit national government power.
Step-by-step explanation:
An abridgment is indeed the curtailing of rights—limits can be placed on time, place, and manner of expression, provided that the restrictions do not interfere with the substance of the expression. Therefore, the statement given is true. Restrictions can be placed, as long as they are content neutral, not vague, and do not involve prior restraint.
Limitations on speech and expression must meet certain criteria: they must be content neutral, they should not be vague, and they should not use prior restraint.
Moreover, the government can restrict expression that incites criminal acts, constitutes genuine threats, or falls into categories like obscenity, defamation, and fighting words. However, these restrictions must be the least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate government objective and should be clear enough to prevent a chilling effect on free speech.
Exercise 9.3.1: The necessary and proper clause actually provides the national government with the flexibility to carry out its powers and is not specifically aimed at limiting government power. Hence, the correct answer to the exercise is false.