Under the new constitution, congress was not granted general legislative power, but rather, powers, that explicitly listed powers in which it could engage.

The answer is "enumerated" powers.

The powers of the government that are particularly stated in the Constitution are some of the time called 'delegated' or 'expressed powers,' however frequently they are known as 'enumerated powers,' and they portray how a federal government with three branches can work successfully.  

Congress can lay and gather taxes; it can coin cash, announce war, make rules for military lead, and raise and keep up armed forces and naval forces. These forces are genuinely obvious, and however there might be banter about the particulars of each authority, there's not a considerable measure of vagueness about the meaning of each.

it increase by 12% a year from 1812-1820

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is