• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How is the size of the government unconstitutional?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I hear about it so often. The Constitution gives the government such and such enumerated powers, and now they're doing all sorts of crap that is nowhere in the Constitution.

News flash: It IS in the Constitution! It's the necessary and proper clause! The federal government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

Furthermore, the federal government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. That enumerated power is pretty vague and broad. It allows the federal government to do virtually anything, as long as the activity affects commerce. If you buy your wholesale inventory from out of state... heck, if you even so much as use a sheet of paper from a tree that was cut down from out of state, then you affect interstate commerce for the purpose of being bound by federal regulations.

If it's any concilation, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot regulate personal relationship. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

However, virtually everything that the federal government does either affects businesses, or it falls under some other enumerated power, such as the power to make intellectual property law, or the power to tax (including taxing income, as enumerated by the 16th Amendment, and yes, skeptics, the 16th Amendment WAS validly enacted).

If it regulates commerce, then it probably is constitutional, because almost no company does not affect interstate commerce in any way, shape, or form. Heck, even a law firm who isn't licensed to practice law outside his home state probably buys periodicals that follow case law from a publisher who affects interstate commerce.

So tell me, what's unconstitutional about what the federal government does? And, why should your belief in its unconstitutionality trump the Elastic Clause?
 
I hear about it so often. The Constitution gives the government such and such enumerated powers, and now they're doing all sorts of crap that is nowhere in the Constitution.

News flash: It IS in the Constitution! It's the necessary and proper clause! The federal government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

Furthermore, the federal government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. That enumerated power is pretty vague and broad. It allows the federal government to do virtually anything, as long as the activity affects commerce. If you buy your wholesale inventory from out of state... heck, if you even so much as use a sheet of paper from a tree that was cut down from out of state, then you affect interstate commerce for the purpose of being bound by federal regulations.

If it's any concilation, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot regulate personal relationship. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

However, virtually everything that the federal government does either affects businesses, or it falls under some other enumerated power, such as the power to make intellectual property law, or the power to tax (including taxing income, as enumerated by the 16th Amendment, and yes, skeptics, the 16th Amendment WAS validly enacted).

If it regulates commerce, then it probably is constitutional, because almost no company does not affect interstate commerce in any way, shape, or form. Heck, even a law firm who isn't licensed to practice law outside his home state probably buys periodicals that follow case law from a publisher who affects interstate commerce.

So tell me, what's unconstitutional about what the federal government does? And, why should your belief in its unconstitutionality trump the Elastic Clause?

this is typical unlearned amateur outcome based constitutional interpretation

The tenth amendment would mean nothing if your interpretation is correct.

Read the US v LOPEZ decision (around 1995 IIRC) for some edification
 
this is typical unlearned amateur outcome based constitutional interpretation

The tenth amendment would mean nothing if your interpretation is correct.
[/QUOTE]
So, are you saying that the Supreme Court, who has repeatedly upheld these laws, are unlearned amateurs?
 
Umm...the necessary and proper clause is meant to make sure that the government can act on the powers already given. Its not at all meant to do what you think it is. The laws it would allow would be laws to make sure the powers given can be cared out, nothing really more. I'm not sure you really understand it all that well if you think you can throw it around like you just did.

The commerce clause isn't actually meant that the government can act on commerce of business, but commerce between states when the states demand. Meaning it is meant to be a conflict peacemaker, not a control tool the government can use to throw around regulations right and left.

Also, I never much cared for the term "elastic" clause, it doesn't accuracy describe what it is talking about.

edit: Also, I wouldn't put much weight into court rulings.
 
Last edited:
So, are you saying that the Supreme Court, who has repeatedly upheld these laws, are unlearned amateurs?[/QUOTE]


In many cases (circa 1936 or so) they were political hacks intimidated by the FDR threat to pack the court. Later on they were slaves to bad precedent. and they have not upheld everything that was based on the commerce clause

read the Lopez decision for some edificiation
 
They are part of the Statist cabal.

They are as liable to act politically as any other part of government and many have engorged themselves on the statist koolaid
 
I hear about it so often. The Constitution gives the government such and such enumerated powers, and now they're doing all sorts of crap that is nowhere in the Constitution.

News flash: It IS in the Constitution! It's the necessary and proper clause! The federal government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

Furthermore, the federal government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. That enumerated power is pretty vague and broad. It allows the federal government to do virtually anything, as long as the activity affects commerce. If you buy your wholesale inventory from out of state... heck, if you even so much as use a sheet of paper from a tree that was cut down from out of state, then you affect interstate commerce for the purpose of being bound by federal regulations.

If it's any concilation, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot regulate personal relationship. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

However, virtually everything that the federal government does either affects businesses, or it falls under some other enumerated power, such as the power to make intellectual property law, or the power to tax (including taxing income, as enumerated by the 16th Amendment, and yes, skeptics, the 16th Amendment WAS validly enacted).

If it regulates commerce, then it probably is constitutional, because almost no company does not affect interstate commerce in any way, shape, or form. Heck, even a law firm who isn't licensed to practice law outside his home state probably buys periodicals that follow case law from a publisher who affects interstate commerce.

So tell me, what's unconstitutional about what the federal government does? And, why should your belief in its unconstitutionality trump the Elastic Clause?

You're missing the entire clause. No cherry picking allowed. The full clause is, "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."

Pay careful attention to the bolded and the italicized section. The full clause makes it clear that Congress has the authority to make all the laws necessary and proper in order to carry out the powers listed in the Constitution. There is no invention of new powers allowed due to the presence of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

this is typical unlearned amateur outcome based constitutional interpretation

The tenth amendment would mean nothing if your interpretation is correct.

Read the US v LOPEZ decision (around 1995 IIRC) for some edification

Don't you just love it that anti-Constitutionalists pick three words out of a clause to support their position?
 
Last edited:
So, are you saying that the Supreme Court, who has repeatedly upheld these laws, are unlearned amateurs?[/QUOTE]

They know and understand the Constitution very well, and that helps them manipulate it to fit their agendas.
 
I hear about it so often. The Constitution gives the government such and such enumerated powers, and now they're doing all sorts of crap that is nowhere in the Constitution.

News flash: It IS in the Constitution! It's the necessary and proper clause! The federal government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
Yes. Necessary and proper, pursuant to a power allocated to the givernment by the Constitution.
Cite the article section and clause of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do anything with retirement, health care, or education.

Furthermore, the federal government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. That enumerated power is pretty vague and broad. It allows the federal government to do virtually anything, as long as the activity affects commerce.
Absolutely false.
 
So tell me, what's unconstitutional about what the federal government does? And, why should your belief in its unconstitutionality trump the Elastic Clause?

Some have suggested reading Lopez. I further suggest going back to the writing of the Constitution and its ratification for its original intent.

First, to best understand the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is helpful to read Federalist # 33 in its entirety. Here is the beginning of this Paper by Hamilton:

THE residue of the argument against the provisions of the Constitution in respect to taxation is ingrafted upon the following clause. The last clause of the eighth section of the first article of the plan under consideration authorizes the national legislature "to make all laws which shall be NECESSARY and PROPER for carrying into execution THE POWERS by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"; and the second clause of the sixth article declares, "that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and the treaties made by their authority shall be the SUPREME LAW of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light, it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers. This is so clear a proposition, that moderation itself can scarcely listen to the railings which have been so copiously vented against this part of the plan, without emotions that disturb its equanimity.


Then take a look at what Madison said in Federalist # 44:

The SIXTH and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest. 1. Of these the first is, the "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. "Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the FORM of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted? There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference. Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "EXPRESSLY" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction.
It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted. Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.
Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made. Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the Union. If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives.


What was said on this topic in the Ratification Debates of the States? More to come.
 
George Mason argued against the ratification of the Constitution in the Virginia Convention. Here is what one newspaper said about his argument:

The Petersburg Virginia Gazette responded to Mason's critique of the necessary and proper clause: "Nothing more groundless and ridiculous than this." His construction of the clause was "absolutely puerile." - George Mason - Forgotten Founder by Jeff Broadwater, p. 224 - 225

It is urged, as a general objection to this system, that "the powers of Congress are unlimited and undefined, and that they will be the judges, in all cases, of what is necessary and proper for them to do." To bring this subject to your view, I need do no more than point to the words in the Constitution, beginning at the 8th sect. art. 1st. "The Congress (it says) shall have power," &c. I need not read over the words, but I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the powers are not as accurately and minutely defined, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language. The old Constitution is as strongly marked on this subject; and even the concluding clause, with which so much fault has been found, gives no more or other powers; nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are limited and defined by the following, "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution. - James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, Dec, 4, 1787

The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that latitude of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there would be room for those horrors. But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. If the delegation of their powers be safe, no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most but explanatory. For when any pwoer is given, its delgation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it. Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity. The particular powers which are found necessary to be given are therefore delegated generally, and particular and minute specification is left to the legislature. - James Madison in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

"the clause gives no new power." - Federalism, The Founder's Design, by Raoul Berger, p. 89, & Archibald Maclaine in the North Carolina Ratifying Convention

No new power! I would think that is pretty clear. So far, I have shown at least 5 people from the Founding Era who agree that the Necessary and Proper Clause is not all-inclusive as some would like us to believe. There are other commentaries, if anyone would like to see them, just let me know.
 
No new power! I would think that is pretty clear. So far, I have shown at least 5 people from the Founding Era who agree that the Necessary and Proper Clause is not all-inclusive as some would like us to believe. There are other commentaries, if anyone would like to see them, just let me know.
Just to be fair... the OP claims that the Elastic Clause may be used in conjunction with the Commerce Clause to enact such things as Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, etc.
 
Just to be fair... the OP claims that the Elastic Clause may be used in conjunction with the Commerce Clause to enact such things as Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, etc.

Well, it is evident that the Necessary and Proper Clause is not germane. I would like to see the quotes from the Founding Era that say that it is germane when linked to the Commerce Clause. I did not find it in Madison's Notes on the Convention, The Federalist Papers, the notes from the various Ratification Conventions of the States. I look forward to the sources.
 
this is typical unlearned amateur outcome based constitutional interpretation

The tenth amendment would mean nothing if your interpretation is correct.

Read the US v LOPEZ decision (around 1995 IIRC) for some edification

While I agree with you that the 10th amendment has meaning, and that both the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause are prone to both abuse and misunderstanding, it's a tad ridiculous to suggest that the Lopez decision is either the final word on the subject, or could even potentially provide a complete understanding of the issues involved. For example, you could look to something like Gonzalez v Raich for a much different perspective.
 
A point I'm curious about is the following.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Then, sometime after the Preamble,

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.

My question is, are the contents and provisions established in the Preamble included in the bolded part of the necessary and proper clause? I've wondered about this, and I've asked around, but never gotten an answer about it. When I look at it, it seems to me the Preamble does list powers vested by this Constitution, and People in the government of the United States, and it does come before the necessary and proper clause. In that aspect of it, it comes down to the courts to determine whether a agency, law or whatever and see whether it enhances the lives of the American People, in their opinions.

If this is the case, it could easily allow a Big Brother construct, and means the Fathers were very trusting and optimistic about the people's ability to decide, but that would make sense, in a lot of ways.
 
A point I'm curious about is the following.

Then, sometime after the Preamble,


My question is, are the contents and provisions established in the Preamble included in the bolded part of the necessary and proper clause? I've wondered about this, and I've asked around, but never gotten an answer about it. When I look at it, it seems to me the Preamble does list powers vested by this Constitution, and People in the government of the United States, and it does come before the necessary and proper clause. In that aspect of it, it comes down to the courts to determine whether a agency, law or whatever and see whether it enhances the lives of the American People, in their opinions.

If this is the case, it could easily allow a Big Brother construct, and means the Fathers were very trusting and optimistic about the people's ability to decide, but that would make sense, in a lot of ways.

The preamble is not part of constitutional law. It is merely a general statement of purpose. The powers or authority of the Federal Government are enumerated and found in Article I, section 8.

The Court is not to decide depending on how a law enhances or doesn't enhance people's lives. They are to decide any issues based on the meaning of the Constitution. For a Supreme Court decision that supports my point, please see:

JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U. S. 11 :: Volume 197 :: 1905 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
 
The preamble is not part of constitutional law. It is merely a general statement of purpose. The powers or authority of the Federal Government are enumerated and found in Article I, section 8.

What does the, "...all other powers vested..." part mean then? It almost necessarily has to refer to something else, or it wouldn't have been included. And isn't the point of the necessary and proper clause to allow Congress to fulfill purposes such as those in the Preamble?

The Court is not to decide depending on how a law enhances or doesn't enhance people's lives. They are to decide any issues based on the meaning of the Constitution. For a Supreme Court decision that supports my point, please see:

JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U. S. 11 :: Volume 197 :: 1905 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Hypothetically, what if the point of a provision is to enhance the lives of citizens? Can the courts then determine whether a law does or does not?
 
Last edited:
Some have suggested reading Lopez. I further suggest going back to the writing of the Constitution and its ratification for its original intent.

First, to best understand the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is helpful to read Federalist # 33 in its entirety. Here is the beginning of this Paper by Hamilton:

THE residue of the argument against the provisions of the Constitution in respect to taxation is ingrafted upon the following clause. The last clause of the eighth section of the first article of the plan under consideration authorizes the national legislature "to make all laws which shall be NECESSARY and PROPER for carrying into execution THE POWERS by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"; and the second clause of the sixth article declares, "that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and the treaties made by their authority shall be the SUPREME LAW of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light, it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers. This is so clear a proposition, that moderation itself can scarcely listen to the railings which have been so copiously vented against this part of the plan, without emotions that disturb its equanimity.


Then take a look at what Madison said in Federalist # 44:

The SIXTH and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest. 1. Of these the first is, the "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. "Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the FORM of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted? There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference. Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "EXPRESSLY" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction.
It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted. Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.
Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made. Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconvenience would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the Union. If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives.


What was said on this topic in the Ratification Debates of the States? More to come.

When I read the writings of the Founders like this, I can't help but be wholly unimpressed by the leftwing naysayers who couldn't even begin to disarm any of these arguments. I haven't seen a single person around here that could even begin to write with the same command of the language.
 
When I read the writings of the Founders like this, I can't help but be wholly unimpressed by the leftwing naysayers who couldn't even begin to disarm any of these arguments. I haven't seen a single person around here that could even begin to write with the same command of the language.

Why do you assume that it's always "leftwing naysayers" disputing the FF's? And please, don't respond with some sort of generalization. If it's based on anecdotal evidence, I'll take that.
 
What does the, "...all other powers vested..." part mean then? It almost necessarily has to refer to something else, or it wouldn't have been included. And isn't the point of the necessary and proper clause to allow Congress to fulfill purposes such as those in the Preamble?

Hypothetically, what if the point of a provision is to enhance the lives of citizens? Can the courts then determine whether a law does or does not?

There are a few powers that are outlined ouside of Article I, Section 8. If you read my two postings with regards to the Federalist Papers and what was said in the Ratification Conventions, the phrase you question would cover these. One example of one of these powers would be governing territories.

As for your hypothetical, whether or not a law enhances lives should not be subject to review. Again, if the Federal Government has the authority to do something, the law would be constitutional. If it does not have constitutional authority, the authority belongs to the states and not the Federal Government.
 
How does the necessary and proper clause give the gov't the authority to do anything other than enforce the powers it has already been given? How are all those federal departments like the department of education and a very large number of laws that have been passed supported by the constitution?
 
Back
Top Bottom