Final answer:
The claim that the framers of the Constitution did away with the principle of limited government after the Articles of Confederation is false. They aimed to balance a stronger federal government with the retention of states' rights and implemented checks and balances to prevent tyranny.
Step-by-step explanation:
After the Articles of Confederation, the framers of the Constitution did not decide to do away with the principle of limited government. Rather, they sought to create a stronger central government while still maintaining a system of checks and balances to ensure that no single branch would become too powerful. This is evident in the creation of a bicameral legislature, a national judicial system, and an executive branch led by a president.
It is false that the framers decided to abandon limited government entirely. They recognized the weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation, particularly the national government's inability to tax, regulate commerce, or raise an army efficiently. In response, they advocated for a federal system that allowed for a more robust national government while also preserving the autonomy of the states.
The Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution, contrary to limiting the power of the national government, actually gave Congress the flexibility to pass laws essential for carrying out its enumerated powers, further strengthening the federal government's role. Therefore the statement that the Necessary and Proper Clause has had the effect of limiting the power of the national government is false.