Final answer:
The case Pearson v. Callahan did not place limitations on qualified immunity for police officers; it in fact provided them with broader protections, making the true/false statement false. Additionally, the necessary and proper clause has expanded federal power, and Pennsylvania's constitution was progressive, not conservative, with Dillon's Rule limiting local government autonomy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement regarding Pearson v. Callahan is false. Pearson v. Callahan is a case that involved the concept of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures—as long as the officials did not violate clearly established law. Rather than placing significant limitations on when police officers have qualified immunity, the Supreme Court's decision in Pearson v. Callahan provided police officers with more leeway. It gave courts more discretion to grant qualified immunity to police and other government officials without first determining whether there was a constitutional violation.
In the other exercises highlighted, the necessary and proper clause does not limit the power of the national government. Instead, it has allowed the government to exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution, thus expanding its authority. This means the answer to Exercise 9.3.1 is false. Regarding Pennsylvania's constitution, it was considered among the more progressive, not conservative, of the time. Therefore, the statement in Exercise 9.1.3 and Exercise 3 is false. Lastly, Dillon's Rule actually limits the autonomy of local governments, meaning the correct answer to that statement is false.