Jon: "Necessary and proper" were the magic words in McCullough v. Maryland, but Marshall got them out of Art. 1, Sec. 8. I'm not sure we can advance this discussion by expanding or contracting the set of doubtful cases. There are still going to be doubtful cases and disagreements about the size of the set and its contours.
More to the point, Eugene is going to run us off to a general conlaw list. Joe: Madison spins, as does Tom Paine, but a more general reply is as above: we're on thin firearmsregs ice. Steve Russell > ---------- > > The best way to answer that is to accept the libertarian presumption of the > Founders that if there was any reasonable doubt concerning whether a power > had been delegated, or, equivalently, whether an individual has an immunity, > or right against the affirmative action of government, the decision must > always be made against the power and in favor of the immunity. The refrain > should be, "quo warranto", and that should seek an unbroken logical chain of > authority from the applicable constitution, either from a provision of it or > a lack thereof. > > The Founders were somewhat more literal-minded than lawyers today in the way > they wrote constitutions and expected them to be interpreted. They never > intended doctrines of "implied" or "inherent" powers to hold the sway they > do today. "Implied" powers were only to administer a delegated power, not to > do whatever it might take to achieve an objective that a delegated power > might be used to try to accomplish. > > Russell, Steve wrote: > > If there is, the question is whose opinion gets the benefit of doubts? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions > for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >
