History Question

[Elisheva]

What is the difference between Implied Powers as opposed to expressed powers?

[Elisheva]

Please reply ASAP.

[coconutt2000]

Probably the difference between the definitions of the words:

implicit and explicit

[dirtboy]

What is the difference between Implied Powers as opposed to expressed powers?

Under this Supreme Court, apparently none.

[ladtx]

Gosh I didn't know there was a test today. I didn't study.

[Dr.Hilarious]

Uh, implied powers are implied in the laws, while expressed powers are expressed in the laws?

[Treader]

ASAP? This is your first post, and you directly order FReepers to an immediate response...go pull your ego's lower lip over your head and swallow.

[stylin19a]

Your dad has "implied" powers, as in when your mom says "Wait til your father gets home"

Your mom has "expressed" powers as in "Get me a switch from that tree in the back yard".

BTW...welcome to FR.
In before the Zot & Ban ?

[Fierce Allegiance]

What are you implying?

I think the viking kitties are going to express your entrails.

[hispanichoosier]

In Constitutional law, express powers are specifically given to the government (state or federal). For example, Article I, section 8, clause 7 expressly gives Congress the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads." Thus, government's express powers are written in black & white in its founding documents.

Implied powers are powers that derive from the express powers. McCulloch v. Maryland was the seminal case regarding the implied power of Congress to incorporate a bank. A good example of an implied power is the payment of wages for Post Office employees. Article I, section 8, clause 7 does not expressly provide for the employment of mailmen, but it would make little sense to have a Post Office without workers. Thus, the power to employ such workers can be implied from pairing Article I, section 8, clause 7 with the "Necessary and Proper" clause (Article I, section 8, clause 18).

Before my fellow FReepers start flaming me, let me point out that what I have written is merely the analysis followed by the federal courts. It does not necessarily express my opinion (positive or negative) regarding implied powers jurisprudence.

[Dashing Dasher]

Sniff Sniff....

[hlmencken3]

[KC Burke]

fine reply and of course your reservation points to the problem with the growth of Federal Government through the various branchs where they feel that almost anything can be implied to satisfy current feelings about what is needed to "provide for the general welfare" or any other general statement within the Constitution.

Original Understanding was Madison's test and the test of what a good SC judge should measure all legislation before them by: ...what did the people of each state understand the limits to be when they ratified the Constitution?

[stainlessbanner]

Constitutional Questions for $1000, Alex.

[Ditto]

A good example of an implied power is the payment of wages for Post Office employees.

I would say a better example of "implied powers" is the power to make mail fraud a Federal as opposed to a state offense.

[DarthDilbert]

Gosh I didn't know there was a test today. I didn't study.

I didn't either. I wonder if we can retake the exam later?

[msf92497]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Too little time, so much fun to be had.

[blau993]

I think your answer is both lucid and accurate. With due regard to some of my fellow FReepers, you cannot have a workable constitution that does not entail at least some level of implied powers. Look no further, for example, than the recently rejected EU Constitution. In their effort to think of everything and make explicit reference to everything, the framers of that document produced a huge, unwieldy muddle that was so bad it couldn't even pass muster with the French.

There is nothing wrong with an implied power that is clearly grounded in an express power. Your "mailman" example is an excellent one. Here's another. Article II, Section 2 provides that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Not surprisingly, having been written in 1787, the Constitution says nothing about an Air Force. I doubt that anyone ever thought it was necessary to amend the Constitution to provide that the President would also be CinC of the Air Force too.

[hispanichoosier]

Not surprisingly, having been written in 1787, the Constitution says nothing about an Air Force. I doubt that anyone ever thought it was necessary to amend the Constitution to provide that the President would also be CinC of the Air Force too.

Thanks for your kind words. If I'm correct, the Air Force was originally part of the Army (was called the Army Air Corps during WWII). The Marines, too, have always had a type of relationship with the Navy that I don't quite understand.

[blau993]

You are correct. The Air Force was known as the Army Air Corps until after the Second World War when it became a separate branch of service.

Historically, Marines in this and other countries are fighting men who serve aboard naval vessels. The Marine Corps remains part of the Navy, although it operates in many respects as a separate branch of service. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, for example, is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, co-equal with the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations. However, many prospective Marine officers attend the Naval Academy as midshipmen or are drawn from Naval ROTC units, and doctors and corpsmen attached to Marine units are Navy personnel (and greatly cherished by "their" Marines). The Navy also furnishes "transportation services" for Marine units, to the considerable amusement of the latter.