A constitutionally incoherent and laughable "justification" perhaps . . .
For what purpose it is presented is not readily apparent, other than to usurp, which is rejected.
Agreed.
There are very few who don't understand the place of the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution.
It was presented as a clear explanation that congress has full power to do what it feels is necessary to fulfill it's duty as outlined in the Constitution.
This means the enumerated powers.
Unenumerated powers are beyond them.
In other words:
Congress has the power to "Coin money". That is spelled out.
What isn't spelled out is that they can build mints to do so.
But, I doubt anyone disagrees with their actions to do so.
To coin money you need an apparatus and the founders knew this.
Nowhere is congress authorized to have federal parks.
This is from an article:
* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.
* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best.
* As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.
* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a
duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.