Bunkerville NV escalating.

[Destro]

Why is the 10th amendment invisible here?

The "foregoing powers" and "all other powers" listed in that clause are the ones listed in Article 1, Section 8. Note that the clause says "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." It doesn't say ALL powers. The federal government doesn't have other powers just because they SAY they have them. They must be stated in the Constitution. Any that are NOT stated fall to the states, just like the 10th amendment says.

Some people are reading clause 18 as if it confers limitless power on the federal government. If that is the case, why do we even HAVE a Constitution???

Let’s break it down yo!
Since Hamilton was brought up….we’ll just use him again;

He explains their thought process behind Necessary and Proper
“necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conductive to. It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted, by the doing of this or that thing.”

Next, he explains the intent.

“The whole turn of the clause containing it indicates, that it was the intent of the convention, by that clause to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers. The expressions have peculiar comprehensiveness. They are, "to make all laws, necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Then, he explains how silly it is to take an absolutist take on the clause

“To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation; an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it.”

Lastly, he points out that to take such a stance, nobody would get anything done!

“Such a construction would beget endless uncertainty and embarrassment. The cases must be palpable and extreme in which it could be pronounced with certainty that a measure was absolutely necessary, or one without which the exercise of a given power would be nugatory. There are few measures of any government, which would stand so severe a test. To insist upon it, would be to make the criterion of the exercise of any implied power a case of extreme necessity; which is rather a rule to justify the overleaping of the bounds of constitutional authority, than to govern the ordinary exercise of it.”


They never intended for the constitution to get in the way of usual and customary operations of the .gov

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Let’s break it down yo!
Since Hamilton was brought up….we’ll just use him again;

He explains their thought process behind Necessary and Proper
“necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conductive to. It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted, by the doing of this or that thing.”
Next, he explains the intent.
“The whole turn of the clause containing it indicates, that it was the intent of the convention, by that clause to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers. The expressions have peculiar comprehensiveness. They are, "to make all laws, necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Then, he explains how silly it is to take an absolutist take on the clause
“To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation; an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it.”
Lastly, he points out that to take such a stance, nobody would get anything done!
“Such a construction would beget endless uncertainty and embarrassment. The cases must be palpable and extreme in which it could be pronounced with certainty that a measure was absolutely necessary, or one without which the exercise of a given power would be nugatory. There are few measures of any government, which would stand so severe a test. To insist upon it, would be to make the criterion of the exercise of any implied power a case of extreme necessity; which is rather a rule to justify the overleaping of the bounds of constitutional authority, than to govern the ordinary exercise of it.”

I don't have a problem with "liberal latitude."

Article 1, Section 8 says that the government can buy land from the states for "needful buildings." Does that mean I object to them building an airstrip on an air force base because it's not a building? No, I don't.

But a liberal latitude does not translate to the federal government usurpng powers that are clearly denied to it by the Constitution.

​The federal government's powers are LIMITED under our Constitution. They cannot "make all laws" to execute powers that they simply do not have.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think you are completely missing the point of what Alexander Hamilton was talking about.

Inherent Powers comes from Article 1, Section 8, clause 18.

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.

Hamilton was a subscriber to the idea behind it because he knew congress couldn't possible account for all situations, congress needed to be able to carry out what is necessary and proper


Here are 2 quotes from Hamilton about the subject.

"It is conceded, that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones."

"It will not be doubted that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbours, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would rather be a result from the whole mass of the powers of the government and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. That applies only to powers vested in the government by the Constitution, which is the point I have made several times now.

Incidentally, Hamilton, like any human being, is much more objective in matters in which he does not have a personal interest. Context my friend.

 

[actaeon277]

Sad, but that is the reality of it. It's a 200 year old document that has changed only a few times. The word has gotten more complicated; the people and the govt. The document should have evolved to address legitimate issues with expanding govt and the change in the people governed. It's a faboulous document that had the provisions, contained within it, continually protect the people and smack down government overreach. Unfortunately we haven't let the govt live up to what it should, and can be.

It's only changed a few times for a reason.
Because not enough people wanted it to change.

That's not a reason to ignore it.

 

[Destro]

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. That applies only to powers vested in the government by the Constitution, which is the point I have made several times now.

Incidentally, Hamilton, like any human being, is much more objective in matters in which he does not have a personal interest. Context my friend.

inherent powers aren't required to be written into the constitution. You really should read his whole opinion (as linked) about it so you can stop looking so silly! He completely disagrees with the argument you claim him to have made.

 

[Destro]

​The federal government's powers are LIMITED under our Constitution. They cannot "make all laws" to execute powers that they simply do not have.

the Constitution is an instrument of granting a limited amount of authority and nothing more, as opposed to being a list of prohibited actions.

So does it give the power? Or restrict the power?

usurpng powers that are clearly denied to it by the Constitution.

​

which ones and where?

 

[Manatee]

Never argue with a man whose mind is made up.

 

[jamil]

Never argue with a man whose mind is made up.

Eh, I don't know about that. Arguing with you is typically more interesting than it is frustrating.

 

[Manatee]

Well…in most cases me mind is na made up. Now, after a wee bit of

'ts a different tune.

 

[cobber]

How about we stop rationalizing federal power grabs at the expense of the States. Anything the fed does with the exception of the original enumerated powers, was contemplated to be done, and can be done, by the States. That is pretty simple. No weasel words required, or trying to read the minds of dead dudes. If the 9th and 10th Amendments don't mean what they say, the Founders wouldn't have drafted them.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So does it give the power? Or restrict the power?



which ones and where?

Why don't you try actually READING Article 1, Section 8. It clearly defines the circumstances under which the federal government can own land.

 

[IndyDave1776]

inherent powers aren't required to be written into the constitution. You really should read his whole opinion (as linked) about it so you can stop looking so silly! He completely disagrees with the argument you claim him to have made.

Here we go again. Hamilton may well have changed his tune at a later date when he had a vested interest to the contrary, but that does not change the fact that he had opposed the BoR as being superfluous as the federal government had not been delegated authority to commit any of the abuses from which the BoR protects us. You may also remember that Ronald Reagan had been a flaming liberal in his younger years. People do change, especially when they are politicians. IN CASE YOU ARE TOO OBTUSE TO UNDERSTAND MY POINT, THE FACT THAT HAMILTON CHANGED HIS MIND WHEN HIS VESTED INTERESTS CHANGED DOES NOT CHANGE THE ARGUMENT HE MADE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE BoR, OR THE FACT THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION WERE STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS AS EVIDENCED BY CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS OF THEIR WRITTEN AND SPOKEN STATEMENTS ON THE MATTER.

If there is any doubt about the opinions of our founders, you may wish to read the Tenth Amendment:

[h=2]Article [X][/h]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In layman's terms, that says that there are no such things as 'inherent powers' regardless of what imaginative and anti-constitutional minds since then have managed to dream up.

 

[Manatee]

The federal government first owned Nevada before they provided for statehood. What "power grab" was there, except against Mexico?

Methinks the emotions here outweigh rational thought.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The federal government first owned Nevada before they provided for statehood. What "power grab" was there, except against Mexico?

Methinks the emotions here outweigh rational thought.

Once again, we had a pattern throughout our history of the federal government acquiring land one way or other, dividing it into states, and that land being divided into territories which became states as soon as the constitutional requirements for statehood were met, not being federal provinces or having significant portions defined as part of the new state yet administered by the federal government as a bureaucratic fiefdom. We then return to Article I Section 8 and review what it says on the matter, then the Tenth Amendment. I will also add that extortion is not a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution although it is done routinely.

 

[Destro]

Anything the fed does with the exception of the original enumerated powers, was contemplated to be done, and can be done, by the States.

"It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any human work, particularly the work of a body of men."

James Madison, Federalist Papers 1791

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The federal government first owned Nevada before they provided for statehood. What "power grab" was there, except against Mexico?

Methinks the emotions here outweigh rational thought.

The federal government owned Nevada until Nevada became a state. States have boundaries. Everything within that boundary is part of that state until the federal government acquires parcels of it by constitutional means.

 

[IndyDave1776]

"It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any human work, particularly the work of a body of men."

James Madison, Federalist Papers 1791

Indeed so. This is why they included a mechanism to amend it as needed. This is not an endorsement of simply ignoring it when inconvenient, and if it had been, there would have been no need to bother with an amendment process.

 

[jamil]

"It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any human work, particularly the work of a body of men."

James Madison, Federalist Papers 1791

So you're advocating that the constitution gives the power to do everything, except what's explicitly prohibited?

Given your use of the quoted text to support your preferred view, and having read the entire speech myself, I can only conclude that you either don't know or don't understand the context, or you're cherry picking, hoping we wouldn't read it. What you've quoted is a summary of a speech to congress opposing the establishment of a national bank. Throughout the speech the argument against is presented, systematically going through each of the enumerated powers, and logically removing each as a possible candidate for the authority to create a national bank.

The idea expressed WRT omitted but implied powers, is more about the details relating to explicit powers granted. An example given was naturalization of an alien. The constitution doesn't detail all the powers given to congress to determine the rules for naturalizing aliens, it is implied that congress has the power to determine those rules. But would congress have the power to naturalize at all if it weren't explicitly granted by the constitution? No.

But what you quoted was part of the argument against, and was meant more as a warning, that if congress would interpret the constitution to give them the power to create a national bank, the implied power to create rules around such given the language of the bill, would be nearly limitless.

So the question we're trying to answer here is, what constitutional authority grants the US government power to indefinitely own and manage vast lands within a state? If such constitutional authority exists, you could then apply your quote to say the government also has some implied authority to make rules to exercise that power, such as arbitrarily deciding it will "protect" a ****ing turtle.

 

[jamil]

The federal government owned Nevada until Nevada became a state. States have boundaries. Everything within that boundary is part of that state until the federal government acquires parcels of it by constitutional means.

But then the state of Nevada essentially ceded the land to the US government through its state constitution. So on those grounds I wouldn't think Navada has anything to say. I still think the larger question is, does congress have the right to make government an owner and operator of vast lands within a state?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

But then the state of Nevada essentially ceded the land to the US government through its state constitution. So on those grounds I wouldn't think Navada has anything to say. I still think the larger question is, does congress have the right to make government an owner and operator of vast lands within a state?

Neither the state of Nevada, or any other state, has the right to barter away its citizen's rights under the Constitution.