Final answer:
The idea that lower levels of government can negate rulings from higher levels is false. Federal rulings, particularly from the Supreme Court, are binding on lower levels of government. Furthermore, the necessary and proper clause does not limit but rather extends federal power, and Dillon's Rule usually restricts local government autonomy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'Lower levels of government can negate rulings of the higher levels of government' is false. In the United States, conflicts between states and the federal government are typically resolved in federal courts, with the U.S. Supreme Court being the highest authority. The judiciary has the power to strike down laws and other government actions deemed unconstitutional, effectively maintaining a checks and balances system. However, states do not have the power to negate federal rulings; they can challenge them in court, but ultimately must abide by the Supreme Court's decisions.
The necessary and proper clause is often understood as a source of expansive power for the national government rather than a limitation. Regarding 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.
Concerning Dillon's Rule, it typically restricts, rather than gives, local governments the freedom and flexibility to make decisions for themselves. So for the record, the statement that Dillon's Rule gives local governments the freedom and flexibility to make decisions for themselves is false.