In fact, the law is so clear on what may and may not be done, that I don't know why the thing got as far as it did in the first place.
From the day that monstrous fraud on the American public was proposed, we should have taken the word ‘impossible’ out of every Dictionary of the English language!!
“I can’t believe that ‘not proper’ is the strongest criticism that an intelligent adult (in the business of the LAW) could come up with!!”
His job is not to use words that are inflammatory, his job is to interpret the US Constitution. The term, “necessary and proper” is what’s in the Constitution, and he’s merely pointing out clearly that this law fails to meet constitutional muster: it “may be necessary, but it’s not proper”. It was precisely the correct way to phrase the observation.
The word “proper” wasn’t merely snatched out of thin air.
The Solicitor General brought up the Necessary and Proper Clause as relevant in addition to the Interstate Commerce Clause, as support for this mandate.
Scalia said it might be necessary to the scheme of the whole law, but that didn’t make it proper.
Proper in this case means constitutionally correct, rather than proper as in do you drink from your tea cup with your pinkie finger held straight, or crooked.
Context is everything.
There is nothing weak about Scalia’s replies to the Gov’t lawyer.