The limits of the Commerce power? [W:85, 130]

[Dittohead not!]

The problem is it was never declared, ML should always be declared to make those things proper and only during a time of unrest, usually civil(not the case) or if a war effort hinges on it(not convinced here). Congress took over the power to declare war after 'Nam relegating the president's powers to short term police actions and truthfully I am okay with that but wish it had been done through amendment rather than legislation. My take is there just isn't a way to fully get back to constitutional principles immediately but we've got to start somewhere, the commerce clause and the tenth amendment are important to regain.

I'd reinstate the fourth and fifth amendments while we're at it.

The first mistake was allowing the president the power to fight an undeclared war. Once the Constitution had been ignored, and the balance of powers upset, it was much easier to continue to ignore the Constitution and give more and more power to government, and particularly to the executive branch.

 

[American]

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say all along. Such "limitations" do not exist and those who disagree with me have yet to prove that the government is limited.

"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

Does this answer the question for you?

 

[jet57]

Does this answer the question for you?

No. Both the states of Virginia and Kentucky were opposed to the four acts known as "The Aliens ans Seditions Acts" of 1798 that were enacted because of the threat of war with France. Jefferson penned the draft, and as an anti-federalist; who insisted on The Bill of Rights (he was in France at the time), he was entering his opinion; as an anti-federalist and he was more concerend about the powers that the Acts gave to the president: when one reads section 7 of The Kentucky Draft, he clearly mentions (officers of the government). And since his opinion was not realized by The Constitution, than as I said before, such limits as you are trying to argue do not in fact exist. The commerce and elastic clauses make this very clear.

 

[American]

No. Both the states of Virginia and Kentucky were opposed to the four acts known as "The Aliens ans Seditions Acts" of 1798 that were enacted because of the threat of war with France. Jefferson penned the draft, and as an anti-federalist; who insisted on The Bill of Rights (he was in France at the time), he was entering his opinion; as an anti-federalist and he was more concerend about the powers that the Acts gave to the president: when one reads section 7 of The Kentucky Draft, he clearly mentions (officers of the government). And since his opinion was not realized by The Constitution, than as I said before, such limits as you are trying to argue do not in fact exist. The commerce and elastic clauses make this very clear.

102RP6

Here, read to your heart content. If the Constitution gave the fed govt unlimited power, it would have been written much differently.

 

[jet57]

102RP6

Here, read to your heart content. If the Constitution gave the fed govt unlimited power, it would have been written much differently.

Right; so you can't refute my argument.

 

[American]

Right; so you can't refute my argument.

I've refuted your premise far more than you've supported it.