Are national parks constitutional?
jimrtex:
Quote from: Emsworth on October 09, 2005, 07:02:57 PM
Quote from: jimrtex on October 09, 2005, 06:50:23 PM
Aren't several of the enumerated powers redundant with "common defense"?
No, they are not. The common defense power, like the general welfare power, is only a spending power. Clause 11 dpes not overlap it, because it covers declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal, and making rules--all of which do not fall under spending. Similarly, clauses 12 and 13 authorize the actual raising of armies and navies (which implies the power to regulate them, to provide for the appointment of officers, make rules regarding enlistment, and all manner of other things which do not constitute spending).
On the other hand, if we accept your interpretation that the general welfare clause entails power over all roads, the post offices and post roads power becomes redundant.
Is the post-office clause a spending power?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I never said that the sole effect of the First Amendment was to prevent an establishment of religion in a capital district. I only said that in the absence of the First Amendment, nothing would have prevented Congress from establishing a religion in that district.
With regard to the states, the establishment clause was strictly speaking unnecessary, as no power to establish religion had been granted. This is certainly what Madison thought. [/quote]
But he was the primary author of the 1st Amendment.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
A specific prohibition is not necessary; under the Tenth Amendment, the lack of specific permission is sufficient.[/quote]
The 10th amendment merely says that the powers not delegated to the United States, etc. If the general welfare power delegated to the Congress the authority to operate all roads, then the 10th Amendment is irrelevant to that authority.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
It is not a building. [/quote]
Fences and other such facilities at the battle site would be building necessary to preserve the public record.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Unlike a paper document, the land is a part of a sovereign state. There is no constitutional power to buy land except in certain circumstances.[/quote]
The land is within the borders of a sovereign state, just as a paper document might be. Could the United States purchase a salt cavern for use in storing paper records?
Emsworth:
Quote from: jimrtex on October 09, 2005, 10:40:29 PM
Is the post-office clause a spending power?
Of course it is.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
But he still thought that it was superfluous.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
A fence is not a building either, I think. The government cannot do an end-run around the Constitution.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
There is a difference between land and paper. The land--real property--is actually part of the state. The paper--personal property--is not, but is merely within its borders.
jimrtex:
Quote from: Emsworth on October 10, 2005, 05:42:41 AM
Quote from: jimrtex on October 09, 2005, 10:40:29 PM
Is the post-office clause a spending power?
Of course it is.
You said that the enumerated powers that are related to the military were not spending powers, and that is why they were distinct from providing from the common defense. Is there a different relationship between enumerated powers in other areas, and providing for the general welfare?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
A fence is not a building either, I think. The government cannot do an end-run around the Constitution.[/quote]
The United States government can't build a fence around a federal courthouse? What about outside a federal prison?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
There is a difference between land and paper. The land--real property--is actually part of the state. The paper--personal property--is not, but is merely within its borders.
[/quote]
The difference is that a piece of paper can be moved to a secure place for preservation and protection. The land can not easily be moved with current technology. Therefore the protection and preservation must occur at Gettysburg.
Emsworth:
Quote from: jimrtex on October 11, 2005, 02:09:14 AM
The United States government can't build a fence around a federal courthouse? What about outside a federal prison?
There is a power to build a courthouse or a prison in the first place; the necessary and proper clause takes care of the fence.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I disagree completely. The common law has always regarded real property (land) and personal property (goods) as completely different things. The land is part of a state: it is the land which defines the state. Paper does not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page