Replies

"And thus, so would go the same for "common defense", such that every aspect of our defense would have to be enumerated in your view by the logic you list above."

Thus clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14, as explained by the very next line in my post.

"No, I don't buy your above explanation, as that would mean that whole parts of our U.S. Constitution were REDUNDANT and thereby unnecessary."

You're the one supporting a redundant view of the Constitution. You're saying that they went through the trouble of listing a bunch of federal powers, only to add a single clause that said that the federal government can do just about any damn thing it wants, thus making all of the other enumerated powers redundant.

I'm saying that the clause you posted doesn't give any power to the government other than to tax, and to use the taxes to pay for the powers listed elsewhere. There is no redundancy there. Besides, the constitution WAS written by human beings, and as such would not be flawless. A one-line redundancy (as would be the case if your claim about my interpretation was true) isn't unrealistic. 17 Clauses of redundance (as would be the case if your interpretation was true) would be.

"I'm saying that the clause you posted doesn't give any power to the government other than to tax, and to use the taxes to pay for the powers listed elsewhere."

Can you name a *single* federal judge who has agreed with your above-mentioned opinion in the last 200 years?