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

I would love to get comments on this suggestion — especially attempts at refutation. Certainly friendly criticism of style and substance, or suggestions for further evidences, would be welcome too
1 posted on 07/12/2011 7:03:32 PM PDT by Rurudyne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Rurudyne

Please accept this in a positive way.

The thesis seems muddled — which 2 statements (bullets maybe?) and how do they stand against each other?

You have all the data but it seems slapped together rather than constructed.

May I suggest you go back and outline the document, then post it so that it is clear what the comparison/contrasting arguments are.

The underlying premise is great — the delivery might need burnishing.


2 posted on 07/12/2011 7:10:58 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rurudyne
The first statement derives from the doctrine of "implied powers"-- that is, if the Constitution charges a branch of government with a given responsibility, then that implies that the government has the power to pass legislation necessary to fulfill that responsibility.

EG, it makes no sense to say the federal government is responsible for a post office, but then to deny the government the authority to raise revenues to fund that post office.

The Implied Powers doctrine has long been accepted as legitimate, with the caveat that it falls within the doctrine of enumerated powers which set a limit on federal adventurism.

The second statement, frankly, is gobbledygook.

3 posted on 07/12/2011 7:28:21 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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