View Single Post
  #3    
Old 10-21-2007, 03:12 PM
Dankdude's Avatar
Dankdude
Mr.Ganja
Mr. Ganja
Dankdude is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere in Texas
Posts: 2,880
Dankdude is a splendid one to beholdDankdude is a splendid one to beholdDankdude is a splendid one to beholdDankdude is a splendid one to beholdDankdude is a splendid one to beholdDankdude is a splendid one to beholdDankdude is a splendid one to behold
Points: 13,846, Level: 17 Points: 13,846, Level: 17 Points: 13,846, Level: 17
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
The residue of the argument against the provisions of the Constitution in respect to taxation is ingrafted upon the following clauses. The last clause of the eighth section of the first article authorizes the national legislature "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"; and the second clause of the sixth article declares that "the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof and the treaties made by their authority shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light, it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if those clauses were entirely obliterated as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government and vesting it with certain specified powers. This is so clear a proposition that moderation itself can scarcely listen to the railings which have been so copiously vented against this part of the plan without emotions that disturb its equanimity.

What is a power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power but a power of making LAWS? What are the means to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes but a legislative power, or a power of making laws to lay and collect taxes? What are the proper means of executing such a power but necessary and proper laws?

This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and calumniated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws necessary and proper to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation because it is the immediate subject under consideration and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the same result in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is expressly to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all necessary and proper laws. If there be anything exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which the general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.


Thus, the bottom line is that the "necessary and proper" clause does not give the Congress any power that is not already defined in the other clauses. Like the infamous "general welfare" clause, it was intended to do nothing more than to gather together under one head things which were specifically mentioned elsewhere.

Now that we have carefully examined these various different clauses that give the Congress power to pass legislation in certain areas, and the exact ways in which the people who wrote the Constitution intended that those sections of the Constitution should be interpreted and the powers should be put to use, there should be no doubt in the mind of any fair and reasonable person that the federal government has expanded it's powers far in excess of anything even the most ardent supporters of the Constitution ever intended. In other words, in many respects the anti- federalists were right on the money. Just about every liberty which Madison and Hamilton were arguing would not be taken by the federal government because it was not specifically provided for in the Constitution has in the course of time not only been taken but in fact exceeded. The mechanism for such taking more often than not is a stretching of the meaning of the various different clauses in the Constitution far beyond what the framers intended.

In some instances, the mechanism that government agents have used to increase the power that they have available to them is a deliberate fraud based on confusion between laws passed by the Congress intended to apply only to areas that have been specifically ceded to the federal government by the State governments for use as forts, arsenals and other needful buildings and laws passed by Congress intended to apply to the nation as a whole. Because the term "United States" is used to apply to the different areas affected by both sets of laws, there is understandable confusion on the part of people who are confronted by government agents loudly proclaiming that federal law mandates that they do certain things.

In closing, I believe that I have been able to provide enough documentation from primary source materials to demonstrate that the concerns of the patriot movement have a substantial basis. The federal government is rapidly expanding its power far in excess of anything that was ever intended by even the most ardent supporter of the Constitution as it was debated and adopted. To the extent that these powers exercised by the federal government have not been obtained legitimately through the use of the amendment process, but in fact depend for their source on either misinterpretations of the original wording or outright fraud as to which areas of the country are affected by them, then the use of such power by the federal government can not be said to have the legitimate support of the people. It also becomes apparent that the people who are concerned about this sort of thing are not simply making it up as they go along, and are not somehow setting themselves above the law. The supreme law of the land in this country has been and still is the Constitution for the United States of America. To the extent that laws passed by the federal government exceed the scope of its Constitutional authority, then those laws are without force and void. The citizens of this country then not only have no duty to obey them, they in fact have a positive duty to ensure that such laws are not allowed to stand.

This also cuts to the quick of what it means to be in military service in this country. All enlisted members of the armed forces and all commissioned officers are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. As should be clear by now, and should also be clear to anybody who has studied the UCMJ, one does not fulfill this responsibility by blindly following whatever orders come down from on high with no regard for whether or not they are "lawful." And in this country the essence of a lawful order is that it stems from the necessary and proper means used to execute the Constitutional powers of the government. For while the UCMJ is more far reaching with regard to military personnel than the laws are that govern private citizens, the UCMJ nonetheless has it's basis in the Constitutional authority of the government to provide rules for the governing and regulation of land and naval forces. It does not give the government the authority to order the members of its military forces to perform actions which exceed the constitutional authority of the government itself. That is why the members of the military forces in America have their loyalty sworn to the Constitution and not to the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
__________________
http://liberalredneck.org/albums/album04/Mao_Mart.jpg
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn
Reply With Quote