"congress shall have make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." this section of the constitution is known as the a. 16th amendment b. 19th amendment c. elastic clause d. bill of rights

Correct  c. Elastic Clause

Explanation:

Sometimes referred to as the "Elastic Clause," the "necessary and proper" clause of the United States Constitution grants Congress  implied powers beyond the specifically stated ones in the Constitution..  After enumerating a number of the powers of Congress, including borrowing money, coining money, regulating commerce, etc, Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution closes by saying Congress shall have power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."  That's a quite broad and "elastic" statement, which goes beyond specifically delegated powers and gives Congress additional implied powers.  

An example of the implementation of such implied powers in the Constitution occurred when Alexander Hamilton, as our nation's first Secretary of the Treasury, argued in favor of establishing a national bank.  Hamilton believed that anything that is not strictly forbidden in the Constitution is allowable.  A national bank was not strictly listed as something Congress could establish, but there was nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it.  And the "necessary and proper" clause gave leeway to create it, by the implied powers given to Congress.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )