Final answer:
The statement concerning the discharge of a surety through modification of the principal agreement is generally false. In contrast, the necessary and proper clause has not limited but allowed for the expansion of national government power, making the related statement false as well.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that modification of the creditor-principal agreement generally discharges the surety is generally false. In Law, a surety is a person who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another. However, for a surety to be discharged because of modifications to the original agreement, those changes must be material and made without the consent of the surety, which would then potentially impact their obligations under the suretyship.
Turning to Exercise 9.3.1, the statement that the necessary and proper clause has had the effect of limiting the power of the national government is false. The necessary and proper clause, also known as the elastic clause, is found in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. This clause grants Congress the authority to pass all laws deemed necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers. Over time, the interpretation of this clause has been one of the legal foundations for the expansion of federal government powers, rather than a restriction of it.