Final answer:
Federal courts are not bound by legal interpretations issued by administrative agencies; they interpret regulations and have the power to invalidate them. Furthermore, the necessary and proper clause has expanded federal power, Antifederalists were opposed to the Constitution, and Dillon's Rule limits local government power.
Step-by-step explanation:
Federal courts are not necessarily bound by legal interpretations issued by administrative agencies. Agencies issue rules or regulations to implement legislation, but courts ultimately interpret those regulations, especially if they are challenged in the context of a case.
Sometimes, courts give deference to the expertise of an agency on issues within the agency's purview, a principle known as Chevron deference. However, this does not mean that courts are bound by an agency's interpretation; they still have the authority to strike down agency actions if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Addressing the sub-questions:
- The necessary and proper clause has actually had the effect of expanding the power of the national government, not limiting it. (False)
- During ratification debates, the Antifederalists were opposed to the proposed Constitution, as they feared it concentrated too much power in the national government; they were not Federalists. (False)
- The Constitutional Convention did indeed meet with the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, but this effectively led to the creation of a new Constitution. (True)
- Checks that the legislative branch has over the courts include Senate approval for the appointment of justices and federal judges, rewriting laws declared unconstitutional, and withholding funding needed to implement court decisions. (All of the above)
- Dillon's Rule limits the power of local governments, conferring upon them only those powers expressly granted by state law. (False)
- A state case is more likely to be heard by the federal courts when it involves a federal question. (True)
As for the statement about immigration federalism, the Arizona v. United States decision did indeed strike down some of Arizona's most restrictive provisions on undocumented immigration, but not all. (False)