Final answer:
The statement that passing a law does not ensure its consistent use is true. Dillon's Rule actually limits, not expands, local government powers, making the statement false. The necessary and proper clause tends to expand rather than limit federal power, hence the statement is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
In summary, passing a law does not guarantee that it will be used or applied consistently. This statement is true because the enforcement and interpretation of laws can vary greatly depending on numerous factors, including political will, resources, and judicial precedence. Furthermore, laws may be challenged in court, leading to a refined or altogether different application of the law from its original intent.
Dillon's Rule actually restricts local government autonomy by stating that local governments have only those powers which are expressly granted to them by the state government, the opposite of freedom and flexibility. Therefore, the correct answer is false.
In regard to the necessary and proper clause, it has not had the effect of limiting the power of the national government; instead, it has often been used to expand federal authority. Thus, the answer to this question is false.
Regarding voting cycles, it is true that a majority can have cyclical preferences which prevent a clear policy preference from emerging.
Lastly, whether term limits have resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of women serving in state legislatures is a matter that requires empirical evidence. If research supports this claim, then the answer would be true, otherwise, it is false.
It is also true that the colonists were not opposed to the principle of taxation in and of itself, but rather to how the tax revenue was utilized and the lack of representation they had in the determination of taxes.
Lastly, while governments can pass laws to influence market outcomes, such interventions cannot negate underlying economic principles, which can reveal themselves in unanticipated manner, potentially subverting the objectives of the policy.