American Government Online: The Purposes of Government

Why do governments exist? One major reason is that they create rules. But what rules are necessary or desirable? That is open to question, and different types of governments have certainly created a wide variety of rules.

My note: This is an excellent article. Be sure to page through the document with the "next" button at the bottom of each page.

Thank you for referencing that article Grandpa Drudge. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

I agree with marktwain that parts of the article are not historically accurate.

Regarding the discussion of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) for example, the claim that some of Congress's Section 8 powers imply the power to establish a national bank is wrong imo. This is because the paragraph ignores that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had decided against giving Congress the power to regulate banking.

"Two questions were at the heart of the case. Was the bank constitutional? If it was, could a state tax it? Citing the elastic clause (Article I, Section 8) as the basis of the Court's decision, Marshall explained that even though the word "bank" cannot be found in the Constitution, the enumerated powers to tax, issue currency, and borrow money "implied" the power to create a bank [emphasis added]. And no, the bank could not be taxed by a state because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." States' rights supporters believed Marshall wrongly ignored the 10th Amendment, which reserved all powers not granted to the Congress to the states and the people." McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson had noted that Constitutional Convention delegate Benjamin Franklin had suggested adding canals to the post roads clause, probably for the purpose of moving freight.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads [and Canals];"

But Franklin's suggestion for canals was dropped because some delegates feared that giving Congress express power to open canals would give Congress an excuse to establish a bank.

"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added]. — Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

Justice Joseph Story later pointed out that the problem (my word) with the Commerce Clause, for example, is that wide interpretations of that clause and others ultimately defeat the purpose of the federal government's very limited, constitutionally enumerated powers.

"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

The main problem with wide interpretations of Congress's enumerated powers is that people are effectively wrongly substituting inappropriate synonyms for "necessary and proper" in Clause 18 of Section 8 imo.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be ~~necessary and proper~~ [convenient, practical, handy, efficient, desperate Democratic vote-winning] for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Corrections, insights welcome.

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.