5 ms·

Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, an

Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper 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." Article 2, section 3: "He [The President] must... take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article 2 also expresses that the President has power to head executive departments and delegate powers thereunto. While you're at it, you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem . 'Ad hominem' is a particular type of invalid deduction. It's not a fancy Latin name for when you feel persecuted.

nirvana 15y ago
>you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Did you read that page? "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]" You do it again here: "In particular, something doesn't become ad hominen because you feel insulted by it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your persecution complex." Neither of your two posts contain any argument, only a (still unsupported) assertion about what the constitution says, and assertions of negative characteristics about me. Your citation of Article 1, section 8, is an evasion on your part, as it shows that the constitution only authorizes laws to execute "the foregoing Powers". Or in short, Article 1, section 8 proves my claim that the government only has the legal power in the constitution as enumerated by the enumerated powers. You haven't shown the existence of this power either in the enumerated powers clause or elsewhere (in the amendments), and thus you haven't actually addressed my claim at all. Article 2, section 3, merely requires the president to adhere to the requirements of these enumerated powers. Which is actually further support for my claim, not an undermining of it. The fact is that these enumerated powers are very specific: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" shows that they are not so broad as to fit anything not mentioned in between the cracks. You can't say the government has the power to establish an Airline and Airports and Air Routes based on that enumeration, for instance. You blithely quote the word "powers" but ignore that until you show where the constitution grants the power to maintain a standing police force, you haven't even addressed my argument. You can't make an argument on the points. You have twice pretended like there's an argument to be made, and in the second time, effectively evaded the point and quoted irrelevancies as if it were an argument. I must conclude that you have no argument to make, which explains why you choose personal attack instead. Well, I'm done. You can post whatever you want to try and make me look bad. I don't are. Your doing so only serves to prove my point. Even if you managed to find an actual quote in the constitution that rebuts me completely, your twice choosing to engage in ad hominem rather than debate still means you lost. So, I'm done. The sad thing is, this is typical of the intolerance for differing perspectives that is exhibited on Hacker News. I was making point where we had common ground-- but you don't care about that. You simply cannot tolerate the existence of someone who can articulate a different perspective. And so you attacked me. I suspect people like you and the down vote brigade are a large reason why hacker news has become somewhat of a monoculture.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper 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." Whatever, I'm done here--repeating myself until I'm understood is not my idea of fun.
  - lbo 15y ago
    > Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. This clearly states that the powers must be explicitly vested by the Constitution. They can't be made up out of thin air. The state governments != the Government of the United States nor are they Departments or Officers thereof. This passage clearly requires that all federal powers be explicitly granted in the Constitution, though they need not only come from Article 1. Either I'm ignorant of some amendment that grants the powers you're talking about (like the power to have an FDA) or you inadequately understand the meaning of the phrase "vested by". At the end of the day, all of this stuff is stuffed under "regulate interstate commerce" and it's clearly a bastardization of both the word and spirit of the law. If you want broader federal powers, you must amend the constitution, period, and congress has deceitfully snaked its way out of that over and over thanks to the "legislation from the bench" at the Supreme Court that has backed them up at the expense of our constitution's integrity. Additionally, if you want to learn about all of the ways the FBI has broken the law throughout its existence, I'm talking about stuff outside of any conceivable constitutional allowance, I highly recommend reading this recent book on its history (http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/1400067480/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336172776&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/1400...)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - nirvana 15y ago
      Right- powers can be added by amendment, for instance the power to levy an income tax as an example. (which shows the "you have to pay your taxes" swipe for what it is.) I'd be satisfied with a quote from any of the enumerated powers or any of the amendments or anywhere else in the constitution, that explicitly grants the powers in question. I think their real issue is that they don't understand the constitution because they have never read it, or they were taught that it allows unlimited power, or they want it to allow unlimited power. I miscalculated that thinking a thread were we have an example of abuse of powers not granted in the enumerated clause would get them to see that.
anamax 15y ago
> The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper 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. We're still waiting for how those "foregoing powers" or "all other powers" include a general police force. Article 1, section 8 has a list of powers.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Ex parte Yarbrough: The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that, when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. In other words, this argument was a boring cliche in 1884. We know of no express authority to pass laws to punish theft or burglary of the treasury of the United States. Is there therefore no power in Congress to protect the treasury by punishing such theft and burglary? You'd find this and probably 100 other establishing SCOTUS cases on even a brief Google foray into the limits of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Long story short: you still have to pay your income taxes.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - AdleyEskridge 15y ago
    What's the ninth amendment for? From the Wikipedia article: In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows: > It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. Like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution." To attempt to solve this problem, Madison submitted this draft to Congress: > The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. Maybe the constitution doesn't cover enough. Let's amend it.

nirvana 15y ago

>you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Did you read that page? "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]" You do it again here: "In particular, something doesn't become ad hominen because you feel insulted by it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your persecution complex." Neither of your two posts contain any argument, only a (still unsupported) assertion about what the constitution says, and assertions of negative characteristics about me. Your citation of Article 1, section 8, is an evasion on your part, as it shows that the constitution only authorizes laws to execute "the foregoing Powers". Or in short, Article 1, section 8 proves my claim that the government only has the legal power in the constitution as enumerated by the enumerated powers. You haven't shown the existence of this power either in the enumerated powers clause or elsewhere (in the amendments), and thus you haven't actually addressed my claim at all. Article 2, section 3, merely requires the president to adhere to the requirements of these enumerated powers. Which is actually further support for my claim, not an undermining of it. The fact is that these enumerated powers are very specific: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" shows that they are not so broad as to fit anything not mentioned in between the cracks. You can't say the government has the power to establish an Airline and Airports and Air Routes based on that enumeration, for instance. You blithely quote the word "powers" but ignore that until you show where the constitution grants the power to maintain a standing police force, you haven't even addressed my argument. You can't make an argument on the points. You have twice pretended like there's an argument to be made, and in the second time, effectively evaded the point and quoted irrelevancies as if it were an argument. I must conclude that you have no argument to make, which explains why you choose personal attack instead. Well, I'm done. You can post whatever you want to try and make me look bad. I don't are. Your doing so only serves to prove my point. Even if you managed to find an actual quote in the constitution that rebuts me completely, your twice choosing to engage in ad hominem rather than debate still means you lost. So, I'm done. The sad thing is, this is typical of the intolerance for differing perspectives that is exhibited on Hacker News. I was making point where we had common ground-- but you don't care about that. You simply cannot tolerate the existence of someone who can articulate a different perspective. And so you attacked me. I suspect people like you and the down vote brigade are a large reason why hacker news has become somewhat of a monoculture.

cynicalkane 15y ago
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper 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." Whatever, I'm done here--repeating myself until I'm understood is not my idea of fun.
- lbo 15y ago
  > Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. This clearly states that the powers must be explicitly vested by the Constitution. They can't be made up out of thin air. The state governments != the Government of the United States nor are they Departments or Officers thereof. This passage clearly requires that all federal powers be explicitly granted in the Constitution, though they need not only come from Article 1. Either I'm ignorant of some amendment that grants the powers you're talking about (like the power to have an FDA) or you inadequately understand the meaning of the phrase "vested by". At the end of the day, all of this stuff is stuffed under "regulate interstate commerce" and it's clearly a bastardization of both the word and spirit of the law. If you want broader federal powers, you must amend the constitution, period, and congress has deceitfully snaked its way out of that over and over thanks to the "legislation from the bench" at the Supreme Court that has backed them up at the expense of our constitution's integrity. Additionally, if you want to learn about all of the ways the FBI has broken the law throughout its existence, I'm talking about stuff outside of any conceivable constitutional allowance, I highly recommend reading this recent book on its history (http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/1400067480/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336172776&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/1400...)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nirvana 15y ago
    Right- powers can be added by amendment, for instance the power to levy an income tax as an example. (which shows the "you have to pay your taxes" swipe for what it is.) I'd be satisfied with a quote from any of the enumerated powers or any of the amendments or anywhere else in the constitution, that explicitly grants the powers in question. I think their real issue is that they don't understand the constitution because they have never read it, or they were taught that it allows unlimited power, or they want it to allow unlimited power. I miscalculated that thinking a thread were we have an example of abuse of powers not granted in the enumerated clause would get them to see that.

anamax 15y ago

> The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper 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. We're still waiting for how those "foregoing powers" or "all other powers" include a general police force. Article 1, section 8 has a list of powers.

tptacek 15y ago
Ex parte Yarbrough: The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that, when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. In other words, this argument was a boring cliche in 1884. We know of no express authority to pass laws to punish theft or burglary of the treasury of the United States. Is there therefore no power in Congress to protect the treasury by punishing such theft and burglary? You'd find this and probably 100 other establishing SCOTUS cases on even a brief Google foray into the limits of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Long story short: you still have to pay your income taxes.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- AdleyEskridge 15y ago
  What's the ninth amendment for? From the Wikipedia article: In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows: > It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. Like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution." To attempt to solve this problem, Madison submitted this draft to Congress: > The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. Maybe the constitution doesn't cover enough. Let's amend it.