Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
Indeed it would be unlimited.

It was a good thing that the actual powers to effectuate that mandate were specifically enumerated following the statement. If it were a broad mandate, it would have been unnecessary to enumerate the specific powers that congress had.

Balderdash. There is no grammatical indication that each paragraph in that section isn't independent, and some of the inumerated items bear no obvious relation to the leading paragraph. furthermore, the final sentence reads:

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'd call this a serious case of libertarian wishful-thinkingism.

Merry Christmas

shiny

2,732 posted on 12/25/2005 11:05:17 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2727 | View Replies ]


To: donh; P-Marlowe
P-Marlowe is correct regarding the "general welfare" clause.

It's discussed in Federalist #41, and I once did a big post on that subject, here: Post 112.

2,733 posted on 12/25/2005 11:39:07 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2732 | 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