Final answer:
The claim that a waiver provision is automatically included in a 'Condition Subsequent' clause is false. Additionally, it is also false that the necessary and proper clause limits federal government power; it actually expands it. Similarly, the assertion that the Conciliatory Proposition met most American colonial demands is incorrect.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a waiver provision is "deemed included" in a "Condition Subsequent" clause is typically false. Waiver provisions and condition subsequent clauses serve different functions within a contract. A waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, often requiring a clear and unequivocal act by the party waiving the right. On the other hand, a condition subsequent is a condition in a contract that, upon the occurrence of a specific event, can terminate the contract's obligations going forward. While waiver provisions can sometimes be implied, it's not accurate to say they are deemed included within condition subsequent clauses as a rule. Therefore, without explicit inclusion, one should not assume a waiver provision is inherently part of a condition subsequent clause.
Regarding exercise 9.3.1, the statement that the necessary and proper clause has the effect of limiting the power of the national government is false. In contrast, the necessary and proper clause, also known as the elastic clause, actually provides the federal government with the authority to pass laws necessary to carry out its enumerated powers, therefore expanding rather than limiting its powers.
For exercise 8.1.3, the statement that in the Conciliatory Proposition, the mother country gave in to most of the demands of the American colonists, is false. The Conciliatory Propositions made by the British government offered to relax some taxing measures but did not satisfy the broader demands for political representation and autonomy sought by the colonists.