Comment: Why State and County Legislators need to Begin Restricting

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: My kind of Utopia— (see in situ)

Why State and County Legislators need to Begin Restricting

Why State and County Legislators need to Begin Restricting the Federal Government to it's delegated powers - i.e. allowing the federal government to tax only for the two things delegated for it to tax under the Welfare Clause: National Debt and National Defense "in consequence of this clause". And keep their "departments" inside the 10 miles (actually 1 mile) square:

If it is not a bureaucracy Originally delegated, CLOSE IT DOWN (every building - and sell it) and refuse the money to leave the hands of the People of the state. Shut down the income and all UNENUMERATED taxes and backing it with a show of state force.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of "providing for" the "GENERAL WELFARE", supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it ONLY EMPWERED Congress to make such laws as would be "necessary to enable them to pay" "THE PUBLIC DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE"; > that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the "general power of legislation", but to the >PARTICULAR POWER> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the "PURPOSE" of paying the BEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise (*ONLY) as much money as would pay the DEBTS and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER".

The clause which was affectedly called the "sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause" contained "NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in "ALL WELL-REGULATED COMMUNITIES", determines the "EXTENT" of "LEGISLATIVE" powers. If they exceed these powers, the (STATE COUNTY) "JUDICIARY" WILL "DECLARE" it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID". ..."

Pendleton: "...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them 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, I understand that clause as NOT going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "EFFECT" to the >>>"DELEGATED" powers".

James Madison: "...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 (Federal Government) 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 power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority (AUTHORITY GRANTED in the ORIGINAL COMPACT) to make laws to execute it.

Here is a limitation often overlooked:

James Madison (Same Day Convention):

Mr. MADISON. "Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I CANNOT comprehend that the power of (The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) LEGISLATING >>>"OVER" a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" TEN MILES square, and "MAY NOT BE MORE than ONE MILE", will involve the DANGERS which he (PATRICK HENRY) apprehends...."

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 (IN FULL):

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.