The Articles of Confederation and State Sovereignty

[Chris]

That's parsing words. If the Constitution says what the powers of the federal government are, and it does, it should have been the same thing.

Those "parsed" words were debated in Congress.

[Chris]

When I say debated in Congress, I mean:

Tucker of South Carolina introduced a motion that showed how a single word inserted into an important section of the Constitution could have changed the nature of the document and the nation’s history. Tucker wanted to place the word ‘expressly’ in what would become the Tenth Amendment to confirm that the federal government was one of limited powers. His proposed language would have read ‘The powers not expressly delegated by this constitution…” The Tucker amendment would have greatly diminished congressional authority under the ‘necessary and proper’ clause, which had granted Congress substantial discretion to carry out the responsibilities assigned by the Constitution. It would become a major issue throughout the nation’s history- going to the heart of how a federal system should allocate power between the states and the central government- that has never been settled.

Madison vigorously objected, arguing that ‘it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express power ( there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to recount every minutiae.’ He told his colleagues that this subject had been raised, discussed, and rejected by the delegates at the Virginia ratifying convention. Tucker’s motion was defeated in the committee of the whole, but he would raise it again in the full House only to see it defeated on a recorded vote by a margin of 32 to 17.”

Labunski, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, cited in James Madison and the Tenth Amendment.

A longer recounting...

@ Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right

[jet57]

It means I don't care what the two of you think about each other, it's irrelevant to the topic.

I don't think anything of that guy one way 'er 'nother. Why are you even talking about this?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Look up implied powers, which the Constitution historically has been open to. The Articles specifically state all powers now expressly granted the federal government belong to the states.

The Articles of Confederation have been replaced.

The Constitution says that the federal government has certain and specifically enumerated powers.

And the Tenth Amendment states that the powers not specifically enumerated as belonging to Congress are reserved to the states.

Education is not a federal authority. The Constitution does not grant this power to Congress and Thomas Jefferson's Sixth Inaugural address makes this plain.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Of course states have rights.

No, they don't.

In absolute terms, rights don't exist at all and the word is merely a shorthand expression for exertions of government power that are prohibited.

Specifically, what GOVERNMENTS have are defined spheres of authority, which are not rights. Even if rights existed at all, and they do not in any measurable sense, they are held by individual persons. Governments are expressions of collective authority surrendered by the people for their self-interest.

[Chris]

The Articles of Confederation have been replaced.

The Constitution says that the federal government has certain and specifically enumerated powers.

And the Tenth Amendment states that the powers not specifically enumerated as belonging to Congress are reserved to the states.

Education is not a federal authority. The Constitution does not grant this power to Congress and Thomas Jefferson's Sixth Inaugural address makes this plain.

You continue to ignore the elastic Necessary and Proper Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. And you ignore the history of expanding federal power. We can agree on reading the Constitution as limiting but that agreement doesn't stop the government from assuming more powers.

[Chris]

No, they don't.

In absolute terms, rights don't exist at all and the word is merely a shorthand expression for exertions of government power that are prohibited.

Specifically, what GOVERNMENTS have are defined spheres of authority, which are not rights. Even if rights existed at all, and they do not in any measurable sense, they are held by individual persons. Governments are expressions of collective authority surrendered by the people for their self-interest.

Yet it is commonly said that we the people gave up certain rights to the federal government. Rights and powers are interchangeable in this sense.

[Captdon]

No, they don't.

In absolute terms, rights don't exist at all and the word is merely a shorthand expression for exertions of government power that are prohibited.

Specifically, what GOVERNMENTS have are defined spheres of authority, which are not rights. Even if rights existed at all, and they do not in any measurable sense, they are held by individual persons. Governments are expressions of collective authority surrendered by the people for their self-interest.

We give the states the right to do certain things. Don't go all crazy over a word commonly used.

[Chris]

We give the states the right to do certain things. Don't go all crazy over a word commonly used.

Agree, and that is defined in state constitutions.

[Sergeant Gleed]

You continue to ignore the elastic Necessary and Proper Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. And you ignore the history of expanding federal power. We can agree on reading the Constitution as limiting but that agreement doesn't stop the government from assuming more powers.

You continue to ignore the fact that the Necessary and Proper Clause confers no power, that it merely states that Congress can enact laws to perform the functions explicitly enumerated elsewhere.

According to you, the Framers said, "Hey, let's spend two months detailing exactly what the Congress will be allowed to do, and then, when we've sweltered in a hot Philadelphia summer with no air conditioning and no ice for our drinks, we will throw in this clause to that says Congress can do anything it wants."

You need to explain why the power were enumerated if the Congress had unlimited powers.

The powers were enumerated because Congress did not have unlimited power, is why.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was written because normal people do not want to accept a job, say like plumbing, if, for every place they have to run a pipe they have to run to the owners and ask explicit permission to put a hole in a beam. Just so, it is not possible for Congress to regulate interstate COMMERCE (look the word up, I suspect you have difficulty with definitions), unless Congress can actually write the laws.

And just as you would be pissed at your plumber for putting a bay window in the living room when he was supposed to be installing a hose-bib in the back, so to is it unconstitutional for Congress to write laws regarding MANUFACTURING under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and no, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not permit this, because it is not necessary for the goal of interstate commerce to regulate manufacturing nor is it proper for the Congress to intrude on an area not specifically enumerated to it's domain of authority.