Article One, Section 8, Clause 18
Submitted by Cameron_DeHart on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 23:24Implied Powers.
Necessary and Proper.
For the common good.
If you were a constitutionalist, you would be familiar with this clause and quit complaining so much about Obama.
»
Necessary & Proper
is not an enlargement clause, but a restrictive one. (as is the whole damn document)
Little if anything the government does is NECESSARY, meaning there is no other option which can carry out the DELEGATED power in an earlier clause, and nigh 99+% of what they do is entirely NOT PROPER for government to be doing in the first place.
It amazes me that people read "necessary and proper" to mean "whatever the government wants to do, it can." Funny how they seem to ignore the actual words 'necessary' and 'proper.'
nice try defart! just like
nice try defart! just like all good liberals you change the meaning to fit your own agenda... people on the daily paul don't fall for this crap!
Oh how I wonder, oh how I worry
And I would dearly like to know
How all this squander of earthly plunder
will leave us anything to show
Have you read 1.8.13 yourself?
It doesn't say "implied powers" or the "common good"
It does say "necessary and proper" - but necessary and proper for what? Anything they feel like? Nope, read on: "for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" FOREGOING powers, mind you.
Liberals scoff at the constitution
The idea that taxation and expansion of government are necessary, proper, or for the common good does not sit well with a free state.
If someone can point out where in the constitution the authority for half of these programs was specified Id be interested to know. Currently it seems that 'necessary and proper' has been stretched so far it may as well be replaced outright.
The theft of resources from those who are successful and the redistribution of wealth is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. The results of allowing the federal government to overstep its authority and the boundaries of our freedoms to such a degree should be obvious.
Any man who supports such policies is a failed 'constitutional expert' indeed. Or perhaps his expertise isnt with the constitution itself, but the creative interpretation thereof?
Sounds like a lot like an unscrupulous business making a market for itself.
People that believe in such things need to go back to american civics and history 101.
Personally, I trust the founders and their reasoning above any modern day academic who says otherwise.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
They find justification in a
They find justification in a gross perversion of the Commerce Clause.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
PS: Conservatives have also used the Commerce Clause to support unconstitutional rulings.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
Care to elaborate?
On what policies of Obama you are referring to? And how they don't violate States rights. Even if it said "common good" which maybe you can locate that for me... it still has to be within the powers vested in the constitution. The only way to change that is to amend the constitution, not with some regulation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.article...
Amendments 9 & 10
If Obama were a constitutionalist, he would be aware of these clauses.
You betcha. The Constitution
You betcha.
The Constitution is not a fun fair grab bag.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine