Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Implied Powers? Clearly Implied Limitations!
Truth Based Logic ^ | April, 2013 | William Flax

Posted on 04/04/2013 11:12:46 AM PDT by Ohioan

We would suggest that it is impossible to read the United States' Constitution through, fully in context, and not see that any major implications beyond the clear specifics set down, clearly favor a limitation on, rather than an extension of, the specific functions ("powers") granted to the Federal Government. While this may be counter to what many of you have been taught by theorists in contemporary American education--or promoted by a partisan & unobjective media--we will demonstrate our point with specific reference to Article I, Sections 8, where most of the actual functions entrusted to Congress, are set forth; Section 9, where explicit restrictions on Congress in exercising those functions are set forth, & Section 10, where relevant restrictions on the States, coupled with additional functional delegations to Congress, are delineated.

(Excerpt) Read more at truthbasedlogic.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: congress; functions; government; unitedstates
This month we demonstrate how the carefully crafted grants of specific functions to the Federal Government, in the Constitution, clearly demonstrate that no implied grants of power over other functions were intended.

While activist Judges have repeatedly written in concepts that are simply not there, a careful analysis of the context of what is granted, clearly supports our interpretation.

William Flax

1 posted on 04/04/2013 11:12:46 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
There aren't "implied powers". There are ENUMERATED powers. They are limited on purpose. They are the upper bound of what is permitted. The Bill of Rights puts specific limits on what the government can not do to you. It seems the current judges and politicians aren't content with the limitation on their power. If we don't pull the leash up short, we will be trampled.
2 posted on 04/04/2013 11:30:10 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
What you are basically saying is fully in accord with my article, except that the implied limitations on the granted powers, are in no way dependent upon the Bill of Rights, which specifically guards against specific abuses.

My point is that inherent in the document itself, are definite limitations on those granted powers, which inevitably flow from the very level of specificity that the drafters used.

The big problem we have with loose interpretation results from too many people taking language out of the context, and trying to make it fit their wish lists. This is fundamentally dishonest, and leads to all of the usurpations that threaten our future.

William Flax

3 posted on 04/04/2013 11:37:23 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

The main thing “implied” by the whole danged document is that ***the goverment*** is severly limited and curtailed, and that the people are filled with rights. Anything else is insanity.


4 posted on 04/04/2013 11:37:50 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Thanks!

"In addition, please note that the drafters left not the slightest doubt as to the role of Congress with respect to any Federal law. Article I, Section 1, could not be more explicit: 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, . . . '"

Clearly, this President's chafing at what he this week called the "constraints" of the Founders' Constitution (he called it their 'system'), and his constant attacks on the current Republican-led "Congress" are related to the Constitution's mandate as cited above.

The fact is that America's Constitution, based on the philosophy laid out in the Declaration of Independence, always will frustrate and, in the words of Lincoln, will be a "stumblingblock" to petty tyrants who wish to substitute their own arrogant will for the limitations of "the People's" Constitution!

Of the Founding principles, Lincoln said: ". . . it is no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. . . .The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society . . . And yet, they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. . . All honor to Jefferson - to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce in a . . . revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers [initiators of threatening change] of reappearing tyranny and oppression." - as quoted in "Our Ageless Constitution," p. 77, in an essay entitled "The Unique Concept."

The battle of ideas is re-engaged in America today, in a manner not seen for decades, because we are led by those who wish to replace its "constraints" and "limitations" with counterfeit ideas which, everywhere, have led to oppression and tyranny.

5 posted on 04/04/2013 11:41:06 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Yes, but my thrust is not to the general. It is an attempt to demonstrate that the Collectivist effort to justify a "liberal," i.e. loose or enhancing, interpretation of the specific functions granted, is itself clearly wrong, from the tight ways those grants were actually spelled out, in relation to one another.

This is an additional argument to the one you make; based upon analysis of precise wording.

William Flax

6 posted on 04/04/2013 11:47:17 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Any sane reading (note the qualifier) of the Constitution and the writings of those involved in its creation shows that the whole intent was to limit the (necessary) expansion of federal government powers to make it all palatable to those who would vote on it.

The federal government needed more power or the states would have splintered from each other from their internal bickering. But the people were wary of giving the fed more power. In retrospect (hind sight is 20/20) they gave the fed too much power and the Constitution too much ambiguity. Devious people have found ways around the limitations meant for the fed and applied it to the people, so now we the people live in fear of our government - they've actually turned it around on us!

The Second Amendment is being spoken of as supposedly allowing for hunting instead of its real purpose (defense against a hostile government), free speech (First Amendment) is being filtered through "hate speech", which is anything liberals do not like - meaning any Conservative value. The Fourth Amendment has been gutted with no-knock warrants against non-violent crimes by a military-in-all-but-name police force. The list goes on.

7 posted on 04/04/2013 11:51:45 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
You clearly identify some of the absurd rationalizations, which intellectually dishonest people use to push their agenda. If we did not have a mass media, largely subservient to the most Leftwing slants in Academia, people would still wake up to the outrages being perpetrated. As it is, we have a media far more akin to that in the former Monolithic Police States in Europe, than to anything the founders' ever thought would arise in America. They have succeeded in confusing once clear issues.

It really is sickening.

William Flax

8 posted on 04/04/2013 12:03:24 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
One of the corollaries to a strict, literal, interpretation of the Constitution, is that it is fundamentally dishonest for a political leader, who must swear adherence to the Constitution, to seek ways around its clear intent.

This applies more perhaps to Obama than any of the comparatively more moderate usurpers, who have gone before.

We are increasingly far down the figurative "slipperly slope," where our heritage is lost.

William Flax

9 posted on 04/04/2013 12:22:09 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

This is one of my favorite subjects. I have argued, taught, preached Enumerated Powers as a founding principle untill I am blue in the face. That and Natural Law as the bedrock foundation and ultimate evolution of Western thought. I have argued these points with highly successful educated intelligent people. The brutal realization is that modern Americans just don’t like this idea. Hence case precedence is worshiped as a means to get the Gubment to do more stuff. Even my hero Thomas Jefferson who originally opposed the Necessary and Proper clause was the first to really abuse that clause. So this issue always comes down to this: The Constitution is a Social Contract. This Contract has been violated repeatedly and is now void. The secession issue was settled in 1860. So what’s next?

The Constitution only works when people want it to work. I am discouraged. Everybody (mankind) demands Tyranny, Liberty is dead as a prevailing concept. I have no idea where this human experiment is going. Nowhere good I suppose. But tell me this. When has Liberty ever prevailed amongst humans?


10 posted on 04/04/2013 12:22:42 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
"The Constitution only works when people want it to work."

Yes, that is why the Founders expressed the view that their achievement would only work among a religious people.

However, do not despair. The functional premises of the Founders are the valid ones. The pursuit of social "wish lists," that have been used to rationalize usurpation, is an inherently flawed approach to Government.

Keep in mind, that the framers represented a determined minority of the population. We did not even have universal white male suffrage for another 50 years, in any State that I know of. Then, as now, most people really did not want to be bothered with understanding the philosophy of Government. Then, as now, most saw it as some form of mystical power, that they felt no intellectual need to really even try to define.

Our attack must have multiple prongs. We must continue to address the social compact views, that were based upon the actual settler experience--not airborne theories. We must also address, what actually works for the betterment of the community, tribe, or nation. We can win that debate, if we better hone & explain our arguments.

Keep fighting!

11 posted on 04/04/2013 12:41:32 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

“Then, as now, most saw it as some form of mystical power, that they felt no intellectual need to really even try to define.”

Who is leading and distrbuting their brand of intellectual argument today? It’s not Hillsborough College’s point of view.


12 posted on 04/04/2013 12:48:58 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
I think that the mystic idea naturally appeals to people who resist thinking deeply about anything. Sadly, they always tend to be the majority. Free people have always had their work cut out for them, if they are to remain so.

William Flax

13 posted on 04/04/2013 12:58:32 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Hence the Founders rejected Athenean Democracy and created a Constitutional Republic. The last 240 years have been spent earnestly dismantling the Republic.


14 posted on 04/04/2013 1:04:36 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
Actually, by modern Leftist definitions, the Athenian Democracy was not! It was limited to free Athenians. There was also a large cosmopolitan, foreign population, in addition to those held in bondage.

The idea that by counting noses, demagogues can deprive those who achieve in any society, of their birthright, is outrageous, not enlightened.

William Flax

15 posted on 04/04/2013 1:21:49 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
The secession issue was settled in 1860. So what’s next?

I respectfully disagree with this statement, and if the topic was of concern to liberals, they would not consider it settled until they got what they wanted (think of what libs would have tried if SCOTUS had thrown out Roe v. Wade).

The Northern War of Aggression is a term I consider more apt than "The Civil War". My belief is that that the states are superior to the Fed in all things except inter-state and foreign concerns. I look at it as a way to help keep the Fed inline: take too much power from the states and the states will leave.

Nothing in the Constitution says a state cannot leave the Union, therefor they have every right to leave when ever they want. Again, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Fed the power to force a state to stay, but they did, all in violation of the Constitution.

Just because it isn't written down doesn't mean the people's and the state's rights do not exist, but that is what those who run the Fed want everyone to think. It's actually (supposed to be) the other way around: the Fed is limited strictly to what the Constitution says allows for it. And yet, here we sit, with the people having fewer and fewer rights and freedoms, and the Fed becoming ever more omnipotent.

The people have been brainwashed very well, believing we have "Constitutional Rights", which is defined (by those in power) as what rights the Constitution says we have instead of being defined from Natural Law (is that even taught to school children anymore?). Of course, those in power then go on to further define those "rights" ("Second Amendment is for hunting", etc.).

16 posted on 04/04/2013 1:57:24 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

The Civil War cost an estimated 2% of the population of the then United States. Today if a civil war consumed 2% that would be in the order of 6.8 million Americans. Add to that figure economic devestation and the destruction of infastructure is it realistic to think that is a price anybody is willing to pay?


17 posted on 04/04/2013 2:10:09 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
...is it [the casualty cost of another Civil War] realistic to think that is a price anybody is willing to pay?

No, but who said there would be another one or even wants one?

The liberals hate us even more than we "hate" them (but we're the ones accused of hate - standard liberal tactic: accuse others of what they are doing). Our (libs and conservatives) philosophical and governmental beliefs are so far apart as to make it difficult at best, and nearly impossible, to co-exist with each other.

The best thing actually is to separate peacefully before the shouting stops and the fighting starts. I'm sure libs would be as glad to be rid of us as we them. Some libs have even spoken and written about going separate ways. I think they need to be convinced it's all their idea to split up and create their liberal nation and leave us to create our own conservative nation.

I'm sure it would only take a few years before they would be on our doorstep asking for handouts to fund their glorious socialist paradise.

18 posted on 04/04/2013 3:08:29 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
The Southron War of Belligerence is a term I consider more apt than "The Civil War". But I agree with you in principle - the act of secession hasn't been settled. However, the act of unilateral secession was the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that currently stands as settled law.
19 posted on 04/04/2013 3:23:06 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


20 posted on 04/04/2013 3:31:32 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

I will vote for your proposal.


21 posted on 04/04/2013 3:42:22 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
But tell me this. When has Liberty ever prevailed amongst humans?

"1Sa 8:5: And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."

A condition as old as man. Then of course Paul queried as to what would restrain the desperately wicked man that he himself was.
22 posted on 04/04/2013 4:13:00 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
Today if a civil war consumed 2% that would be in the order of 6.8 million Americans.

Chicken feed...Alinsky surmised they would have to kill off about 25 million and that was when the population was a little less...

April 1, 1960. Total U.S. Population, 179,323,175

23 posted on 04/04/2013 4:19:53 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
However, the act of unilateral secession was the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that currently stands as settled law.

Any liberal will tell you that a law is not settled if they disagree with it, why can't we?

I say if the Constitution does not specifically allow the Feds something, then it is illegal for them do to it, I don't care what convoluted reasoning or interpretation SCOTUS uses to justify their ruling. And, again I say, if it is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution through plain language, then the people and the states have the right to do what they want (Caveat: you can't plan for all future occurrences, so some things must be generalized and "interpreted" later. Interstate rules "Commerce Clause" come to mind).

We've all seen recently how the monkey judges jump through hoops to give the Feds more power through how they RE-interpret what the Founding Fathers intended.

I do agree that the Southerners went the wrong way in seceding in attacking Fort Sumter. They should have better prepared themselves for war before leaving and then dared the North to do something about it. Then pull a Palistinian on them and cry out for "justification" from the rest of the world. Hey, it works for them!

24 posted on 04/04/2013 5:10:26 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane; Jeff E
Gentlemen:

Granted that some remedies for the present malady--that is, a Government in Washington that is largely indifferent to the limitations on its own power;--that some remedies might lead to ugly consequences of their own The best way to avoid such consequences is to wake up as many people of good will in our midst, as possible: First to how totally illegal are many of the actions now being taken, Secondly--& concurrently--to the clear, experience based, reasons why the Constitutional framework of the founders, is indeed the best possible one.

When Reagan upped the ante by stepping up our arms race, Communism in Eastern Europe collapsed, not in a bloody uprising but because most intelligent people realized that it was a disaster, from the get-go.

Whatever may be coming, we need to persuade as many of our fellow countrymen, as possible, to the merits of our beliefs.

William Flax

25 posted on 04/05/2013 8:25:58 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson