Exactly. Few and defined powers is a farce. How many “means” have been deemed “necessary and proper” to “provide for the general welfare”, for example? As was pointed out by Brutus at the time, the powers granted in the Constitution are virtually limitless, as history has now demonstrated beyond any doubt.
“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
- James Madison, Federalist 41
“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever?
- James Madison, Federalist 41
We can understand why Chuck U Schumer, or even Alexander Hamilton might wish to misunderstand Madison’s words (avarice and power hunger on the part of Schumer; ambition and perhaps power hunger on the part of Hamilton).
What’s your reason?