Posted on 09/14/2004 9:27:02 AM PDT by jmc813
I'm sorry, but while I see that Congress can dispose of territory, I don't see where Congress can add territory. Nor, do I see in Article 1 where Congress can buy a whole territory, only "places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings". That clearly implies that the only land the Federal government may buy, must reside in a State.
Therefore, going back even further the Louisiana Purchase was unconstituitional, right? I mean, they should have known, it was in 1803, and the Founders were all still around... If it were unconstituitional, then there should have been an outcry and uproar from the people who wrote the Constitution and knew what they themselves meant. The lack thereof leads me to conclude that Constitutional fundamentalism was not endorsed by the Founders.
people who wrote the Constitution and knew what they themselves meant
In post #73, I quoted founders stating explicity what the general welfare clause means. They couldn't have been clearer. The ratification of the 10th Amendment removes all question - they intended specific, limited enumerated powers.
even further the Louisiana Purchase was unconstituitional, right?
Yes. Expedience caused them to faulter. The Republic began to unravel almost as soon as it was created. The founders were human beings, not angels and were not immune from the seduction of power and grandure.
One more thing, what you're arguing in favor of is literally the definition of a "living Constitution", where the enumerated powers model is abandoned for a more flexible version where nearly unlimited non-enumerated powers are found in loose interpretations of constitutional text. This version was conspicuously absent until FDR, the most notorious liberal who ever lived, and is central to the Democratic party's ideology. How is this conservative?
And why not pursue the amendment process? Is it really that absurd to think an amendment allowing for the purchase of land wouldn't pass?
Congressman King said he was the only one from the Iowa delegation to vote against this.
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.