How did the Articles deal with laws necessary and proper?
Why won't you defend the Articles?
It's fun watching you beg and plead to get off the hook. The Articles are not the topic of conversation--The Constitution is.
That's your opinion, which means nothing. Back here in realville, they are constitutional. You just can't accept how the system works.
It's like this. Say there is a baseball game, and there is a play at the plate. The runner slides, the catcher grabs the throw and applies the tag, bang bang, dust flies up, and now the question is--safe or out.
The answer has nothing to do with whether or not the runner beat the catcher. The true answer is that whatever the umpire calls, is the call. If none of the umpires overturn the home plate ump, and he calls safe, then the runner is safe.
You could be sitting in the front row, and maybe you are certain the ump blew the call. You can yell and scream, but you have no power at all over the outcome. And the person next to you could swear you are wrong, and the ump got it right. Doesn't matter either way.
If the government says it's constitutional, it is. That's how dumb this system is. That's how it actually works. The branches have some powers over each other, with the SCOTUS having an awesome negative (and positive) power over the Congress and president, but that's it. It's all decided in house. Totally insane way of doing things.
So, back to national parks. National parks provide for thee general welfare of the US. Hell, they probably help insure domestic tranquility. NASA? Provides for the general welfare.