- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 863
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Please show me where the Founders said that the Necessary and Proper Clause was intended to cover items that "they would not be able to determine every possible scenario that the government would face in the future, issues like global warming." Had they said that during the ratifying conventions, we still might be living under the Articles of Confederation as people were seeking only a limited central government.
"Madison labored both in the Federalist and in the Virginia convention to assure everyone that the Necessary and Proper Clause was not a "sweeping clause" but one conferring merely incidental powers." - Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates Over Original Intent, by Joseph M. Lynch, p. 5
On behalf of the proponents of ratification, Wilson, without referring to the Mason-Gerry thesis, in effect dismissed it. The Necessary and Proper Clause, he said, meant "no more than that the powers…already particularly given [in Article I, Section 8] shall be effectually carried into execution." Later in the convention he maintained "that the powers [of the United States] are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and...the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than what was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted." - Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates Over Original Intent, by Joseph M. Lynch, p. 33
When their proposal was rejected, they took their case to the public, incorporating their amendments in a formal Dissent to ratification, which they published on December 18, 1788. It was in response to their "virulent invective and petulant declamation" against the Necessary and Proper Clause that Hamilton, writing as Publius in the Federalist, restated the construction Wilson had given it in the Pennsylvania convention" Congress thereby had only the power to pass laws to carry into effect the specifically enumerated powers given earlier in the section in which it appeared. The clause, Hamilton wrote, was "only declaratory of a truth, which would have resulted by the necessary and unavoidable implication from the very actt of constituting a Federal Government, and vesting it with certain specified powers." - Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates Over Original Intent, by Joseph M. Lynch, p. 33
Randolph's belated attack drew forth a second defense of the Necessary and Proper Clause from Publius, this time Madison, in the Federalist. He reaffirmed what Hamilton had written. By adding the clause, the framers had merely expressed that which in its absence would have been implied: Congress would have the power to adopt measures in execution of the enumerated powers. - Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates Over Original Intent, by Joseph M. Lynch, p. 34
In these four excerpts from one book, we learn that four (Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, & Randolph) of the more influential Founding Fathers disagree with your analysis. It was the anti-Federalists (those opposing ratification of the Constitution) who made the argument that the Necessary and Proper clause was all-encompassing. The people who wrote the Constitution refuted such a notion and stated that the only reason for the clause was that each of the powers enumerated previously in Article I, section 8 had to have the ability to be enacted and that was the reason for the clause. For example, they set up the three branches. The Necessary and Proper Clause allowed the Congress to have a building, chairs to sit in, paper to write on, and the other items needed to run the Congress. Same was true for the other branches. If the government was to have a currency, they had to have the ability to print the money. Etc., Etc., Etc.
The Necessary and Proper Clause was not there to take care of contingencies that had yet to be planned. Don't take my word for it. Read the source above. If you would like, I can offer much more on this.
