Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bravedog
Air Force - Of course, the founding fathers could never have anticipated a flying device, but it clearly is covered as part of the military protecting the United States.

Your position is that only powers explicitly defined by the Constitution are granted to Congress. The Constitution only explicitly authorizes the funding of an Army and a Navy. By your definition the Air Force is unconstitutional.

The FDA, for sure is unconstitutional, as are most federal agencies.

Are NASA and the air traffic control system unconstitutional?

You are totally wrong about this one. The states regulated immigration. Even Art. 1 Sec. 9 mentions that states get to pick who they admit.

Absolute nonsense. Article I, Section 9 says that migration or importation can be prohibited by Congress and not the states. Your claim may, may, have been arguable prior to 1809 but not after it.

736 posted on 08/19/2010 4:19:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Are NASA and the air traffic control system unconstitutional?

I would surmise that if the purpose of space exploration was conquest, then it would be Constitutional. I know Ron Paul says otherwise. The FAA is a component of interstate commerce and would be regulated by the federal government. However, I would say that regulation is limited to goods and services, rather than people. That agency does a lot more than regulate interstate commerce, so I would say that a lot of their power operates outside of Constitutional authority.

Absolute nonsense. Article I, Section 9 says that migration or importation can be prohibited by Congress and not the states. Your claim may, may, have been arguable prior to 1809 but not after it.

Interesting that you mention only this part and totally ignore history and the 1824 Supreme Court decision that says that immigration remains with the states.
The first part of Article 1, Section 9 was created to regulate slave traffic in newly formed states.
Naturalization does not equal immigration. Immigration was always considered a police matter and a state right until 1875 when the Supreme Court reversed their 1824 decision and said that immigration falls under the Commerce Clause. Voila, they created a power that they never had.

The federal government loves power and will take as much as it can get. It will do whatever it can to take that power, even if they have to say it falls under the Commerce clause. There is nothing the states can do about this, so what do you propose is their recourse?

739 posted on 08/19/2010 6:19:55 AM PDT by bravedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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