If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.
This is why the Hamiltonian view fails and the Madisonian view prevails.
Last edited by Whip Comes Down; 11-19-09 at 11:05 AM.
Last edited by Goobieman; 11-19-09 at 11:17 AM.
Thus the Hamiltonian view is the dominant view and prevails.
The rules don't provide a way to resolve a case where a law provides a broad grant of authority over a particular subject matter, and then turns around and provides a list of specific powers, suggesting that the broad grant was just for amusement.
At the time the constitution was made, the population of the U. S. was divided on the question of whether the government should have limited authority or unlimited powers. The lawmakers wrote both views into the Powers of Congress section of the Constitution, so that the issue would be settled by the political process. The limited government view prevailed at first. However, when the unlimited view came to be the prevailing view, it could also be supported by the ambiguous provisions regarding the Powers of Congress.
So, why did the founders put them there?
And then, given the argument regarding the bill of rights that gave birth to the 9th amendment, why were they ratified?
Essentially, if you support the Hamiltonian view and the court decisions that us it, you're arguing that Congress can do whatever it wants, so long as it does so under the guise of what, upon its own determination, relates to the 'general welfare' or 'common defense', and, further, the fact that there are actual, specified powers, means nothing, put there for decoration.
The Hamiltonian view 'prevails' only pursuant to an appeal to authority.Thus the Hamiltonian view is the dominant view and prevails.
Explain that.The Articles of Confederation limited Congress to "expressly delegated" powers. This was removed in the Constitution.
I'll agree to 1) The explicit clauses are unnecessary under the Hamilton view, except as perhaps the starter laws, as the government first forms. It does provide a way to have unlimited government.