Final answer:
Brutus, an anti-federalist, would argue that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause expand federal power and pose risks to state sovereignty. The clauses allow Congress to pass wide-reaching laws and elevate federal law over state law, potentially leading to federal overreach.
Step-by-step explanation:
Brutus, a pseudonym for the anti-federalist writer, would likely use the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause to support his sub-claim by highlighting how these clauses represent a potential for the expansion of federal power, which the anti-federalists feared. The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers effectively. Such a broad grant of legislative power could, in Brutus’s view, lead to an expansion of federal authority at the expense of state sovereignty. The clause provides significant latitude in determining what legislation is deemed 'necessary and proper,' providing opportunities for federal overreach.
Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution and federal laws are the 'supreme Law of the Land,' which would override any conflicting state laws or constitutions. This principle reinforces federal dominance and could be seen as another avenue for increasing federal control over the states. Brutus would raise concerns about the balance of power and the potential erosion of state rights in favor of a strong central government.