Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
"The ONLY way one could ever reach that conclusion is to willfully ignore Article I, Section 1, which states in the plainest of English that the powers in Article I are to be given to Congress."

Well then, explain Art I, Sec 10, Clause 1. How is a constitutional prohibition on a state a "power of congress" Some of the item listed there are already specifcally prohibited to Congress in Article I section 9. Did the Framers repeat themselves???? Or possibly, did the Framers place conveniently "park" some odd clauses?

Your construction of the "Suspension Clause" remains a textural interpretation.

247 posted on 08/29/2004 12:55:19 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]


To: capitan_refugio
Well then, explain Art I, Sec 10, Clause 1. How is a constitutional prohibition on a state a "power of congress"

I already explained it, to which in usual fashion you have neglected a response. Everything in that clause augments and protects a power of Congress in Article 8 from being infringed upon or a prohibited activity from being claimed by somebody else. Besides, Section 1 refers to _powers_ granted in the article. The declaration of war is a _power_. The suspension of habeas corpus is a _power_. The assessment of tariff revenues is a _power_. But the prohibition of states from minting money in order to prevent infringement upon the power of Congress to do so is not, itself only augmenting the said corollary power.

252 posted on 08/29/2004 1:13:17 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist ("Can Lincoln expect to subjugate a people thus resolved? No!" - Sam Houston, 3/1863)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson