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

To: Roscoe
There must necessarily be admitted powers by implication

Balogney. You have to ignore the tenth amendment which explicitly says that there were not. In fact, Madison himself said this and it was his argument AGAINST the bill of rights. If Storey wants to ignore what the constitution plainly says then that's his problem.

1,331 posted on 01/01/2002 9:55:05 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies ]


To: Demidog
This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectively in them; and if not so invested, it is retained BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their residuary sovereignty. When this amendment was before congress, a proposition was moved, to insert the word "expressly" before "delegated," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the constitution," &c. On that occasion it was remarked, that it is impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers. There must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to the most minute details. It is a general principle, that all corporate bodies possess all powers incident to a corporate capacity, without being absolutely expressed. The motion was accordingly negatived.

1,335 posted on 01/01/2002 10:00:39 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | 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