FACT - The federal govt CANNOT by itself amend the federal constitution

[OKTexas]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Jesus, what are you drinking?




Gawd, use a search engine before you embarrass the usmb community like this.

https://www.boundless.com/political...groups/regulating-executive-branch-lobbyists/

http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/Chap08Notes.pdf

with only one search and two links... [MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Yep, that a congressional power, the executive can make no laws since legislation exclusively belongs to congress.

The post above is your reply to somebody who posted this: "The executive can write its own regulations and rules. which require no legislation from Congress."

Only for the administration of the agencies that the executive is responsible for, the individual agencies can only write regulations and rules to implement legislation from congress and establish internal procedures.

 

[Skylar]

It's allot less ambiguous if you use the definitions at the time the document was written instead of trying to apply today's definitions. Like at the time regulate meant to keep regular, not micromanage every aspect.

Then 'arms' would be limited to muskets? As this was what the term was understood to mean per the founders.

And of course, almost none of the terms used in the constitution were defined by the constitution. What is 'probable' per the constitution? What is 'unreasonable'? What is 'natural-born'?

Depends on who you ask. And while opinions vary, authority doesn't. Adjudication over all cases that arise under the constitution is delegated to the federal judiciary.

 

[regent]

The Federalist Papers have no legal powers they are simply letters to the editor. The ironic thing is that if the Court followed the Constitution's wording they were mot given the powers to declare laws, acts and so forth unconstitutional. The Court took that power upon themselves by their interpretation.

 

[Skylar]

The Federalist Papers have no legal powers they are simply letters to the editor. The ironic thing is that if the Court followed the Constitution's wording they were mot given the powers to declare laws, acts and so forth unconstitutional. The Court took that power upon themselves by their interpretation.

And you're demonstrating yet again that there is plenty of interpretation in what the constitution is supposed to mean. As one of you insists that we use the Federalist Papers to glean intent and meaning of the constitution. And another insists that the Federal Papers are little more than letters to the editor.

Its disagreements like this that lead to so much ambiguity in the meaning of the constitution. With the courts delegated the authority to adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

It also says that the feds can't purchase land within a State without the consent of the legislature, the property you're talking about is for instance the feds commandeer a ship during war time, they must compensate the owner. The feds have no {sic} imminent domain over any private lands.

First of all, if you're going to even attempt to ponder, pontificate, and profess to know wtf you are talking about: Eminent domain

eminent domain legal definition of eminent domain. eminent domain synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

next?

Have you bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, read it and get back to me.

idjit!

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Yep, that a congressional power, the executive can make no laws since legislation exclusively belongs to congress.

The post above is your reply to somebody who posted this: "The executive can write its own regulations and rules. which require no legislation from Congress."

Only for the administration of the agencies that the executive is responsible for, the individual agencies can only write regulations and rules to implement legislation from congress and establish internal procedures.

you end up agreeing with those whose opinions you've attacked?

 

[Skylar]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You do realize that eminent domain requires that the land in question be paid for, right? It simply forces the sale of the land by the private land holder. Which is perfectly consistent with the 5th amendment. As its perfectly legit to take land for public use.....as long as you justly compensate for it.

 

[OKTexas]

Jefferson, Madison and others have said that the General Welfare mentioned in Clause 1 of Section 8, along with common defense were spending categories that were limited in scope by the remainder of Section 8. Pardon me if I take their word over that of a court more than 100 years later. How can you really trust a court that expands its own powers every time they expand the scope of government.

Jefferson played virtually no role in the writing of the constitution. He wasn't even in the country. Worse, he was an anti-federalist...the faction that lost in the debate on what the consittution was supposed to mean.

Madison is a much better source, being a Federalist Paper author. Feel free to quote him backing your point. Directly.

Hamilton, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers and one of the leading proponents of implied powers and federalism in general overwhelmingly supported the idea of implied powers which go beyond the scope of express powers.

A position he backed with actual policy, becoming a fierce and vocal advocate for the Bank of the United States.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison Federalist 45

the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison

You might say Madison was a prophet.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Madison.Quote.3254

You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both houses,
was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that
the phrase in the constitution, which authorizes Congress 'to lay taxes, to pay the
debts and provide for the general welfare,' was an extension of the powers
specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you
know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost
the only land-mark which now divides the federalists* from the republicans, that
Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were
restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they
should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it
could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the
enumeration did not place under their action: consequently, that the specification of
powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. Thomas Jefferson

http://illinoisconservative.com/Jefferson/TJ-06-16-1817.html

 

[OKTexas]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You do realize that eminent domain requires that the land in question be paid for, right? It simply forces the sale of the land by the private land holder. Which is perfectly consistent with the 5th amendment. As its perfectly legit to take land for public use.....as long as you justly compensate for it.

You do understand that Clause 17 of Section 8 says the federal government cannot purchase any land without the consent of the State Legislature. Ever wondered why the rights of way for interstate highways are owned by their respective states? The states use their powers of eminent domain and have retained ownership. If you notice the Constitution does not use the words "land" and "property" interchangeably. The property mentioned would include ships commandeered during time of war or land transportation assets such as trains or big trucks.

 

[Skylar]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison Federalist 45

And where in that quote does madison say that the General Welfare Clause mentioned in Clause 1 of Section 8 along with the comment defense were spending categories that were limited in scope to the remainder of section 8?

I don't see any such mention in your citation. Could you offer us the quote of Madison saying what you claimed he said about the General Welfare Clause?

And of course, the founders demonstrated that they most definitely did believe implied powers. Madison objected to the 1st Bank of the United States. Yet is fellow Federalist Alexander Hamilton was its leading proponent. With the founders soundly passed the bill that created it as one of the first acts of the first congress. And Madison as president signed the bill into law that created the 2nd Bank of the United States. Again affirming implied powers.

As for Jefferson, he has little if any constitutional relevance. He wasn't at the constitutional convention, represented no state in writing it, nor was even in the country as the constitution was written. And was the leading proponent of anti-federalism. Which was rejected in favor of the federalist argument. Making his position the one rejected by the founders with the creation of the federalist constitution. And thus virtually useless in gleaning the intent of the founders in writing the constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison Federalist 45

And where in that quote does madison say that the General Welfare Clause mentioned in Clause 1 of Section 8 along with the comment defense were spending categories that were limited in scope to the remainder of section 8?

I don't see any such mention in your citation. Could you offer us the quote of Madison saying what you claimed he said about the General Welfare Clause?

And of course, the founders demonstrated that they most definitely did believe implied powers. Madison objected to the 1st Bank of the United States. Yet is fellow Federalist Alexander Hamilton was its leading proponent. With the founders soundly passed the bill that created it as one of the first acts of the first congress. And Madison as president signed the bill into law that created the 2nd Bank of the United States. Again affirming implied powers.

As for Jefferson, he has little if any constitutional relevance. He wasn't at the constitutional convention, represented no state in writing it, nor was even in the country as the constitution was written. And was the leading proponent of anti-federalism. Which was rejected in favor of the federalist argument. Making his position the one rejected by the founders with the creation of the federalist constitution. And thus virtually useless in gleaning the intent of the founders in writing the constitution.

I did an edit, check it out.

 

[Dante]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You do realize that eminent domain requires that the land in question be paid for, right? It simply forces the sale of the land by the private land holder. Which is perfectly consistent with the 5th amendment. As its perfectly legit to take land for public use.....as long as you justly compensate for it.

You do understand that Clause 17 of Section 8 says the federal government cannot purchase any land without the consent of the State Legislature. Ever wondered why the rights of way for interstate highways are owned by their respective states? The states use their powers of eminent domain and have retained ownership. If you notice the Constitution does not use the words "land" and "property" interchangeably. The property mentioned would include ships commandeered during time of war or land transportation assets such as trains or big trucks.

Jesus Christ, your idiocy grows by the page:

One item is about the powers of the legislative branch of the federal government to take possession of things by way of purchase.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------

The federal government can and does with due process of law, deprive people of life, liberty, or property.

and read up on things not of right wing challenges to existing reality

USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

 

[OKTexas]

You do realize that eminent domain requires that the land in question be paid for, right? It simply forces the sale of the land by the private land holder. Which is perfectly consistent with the 5th amendment. As its perfectly legit to take land for public use.....as long as you justly compensate for it.

You do understand that Clause 17 of Section 8 says the federal government cannot purchase any land without the consent of the State Legislature. Ever wondered why the rights of way for interstate highways are owned by their respective states? The states use their powers of eminent domain and have retained ownership. If you notice the Constitution does not use the words "land" and "property" interchangeably. The property mentioned would include ships commandeered during time of war or land transportation assets such as trains or big trucks.

Jesus Christ, your idiocy grows by the page:

One item is about the powers of the legislative branch of the federal government to take possession of things by way of purchase.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------

The federal government can and does with due process of law, deprive people of life, liberty, or property.

and read up on things not of right wing challenges to existing reality

USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Don't have any idea where you came up with that but the State meaning one of the several States and the Federal Government have never been used interchangeably in the Constitution.

States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain.

Edit: Property in the Constitutional sense would be what we call personal property, not real property as in land.

 

[Dante]

You do understand that Clause 17 of Section 8 says the federal government cannot purchase any land without the consent of the State Legislature. Ever wondered why the rights of way for interstate highways are owned by their respective states? The states use their powers of eminent domain and have retained ownership. If you notice the Constitution does not use the words "land" and "property" interchangeably. The property mentioned would include ships commandeered during time of war or land transportation assets such as trains or big trucks.

Jesus Christ, your idiocy grows by the page:

One item is about the powers of the legislative branch of the federal government to take possession of things by way of purchase.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

----------

The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------

The federal government can and does with due process of law, deprive people of life, liberty, or property.

and read up on things not of right wing challenges to existing reality

USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Don't have any idea where you came up with that but the State meaning one of the several States and the Federal Government have never been used interchangeably in the Constitution.

States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain.

Edit: Property in the Constitutional sense would be what we call personal property, not real property as in land.

your highlight in blue shows where I wasn't clear enough for your simple mind. The sentence in question was NOT quoting the term 'state' from this sentence 'Consent of the Legislature of the State'

What I wrote were two segments on two separate items from the USC. Both were preceded by bold text to differentiate the two arguments. I actually wrote "The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain." with a lower case 's' in state. I went back in here and put a spacer in there for you.

If you followed up you'd have read "The federal government’s power of eminent domain has long been used in the United States to acquire property for public use. Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government." - USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Your wingnutty insistence on ignoring facts like 'property' including land is par for the course

and "States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain" conveniently leaves out "states, meaning governments" in order to bolster your warped and pathetic sense of being in possession of even a rudimentary critical thinking skill set. If you used small case 's' for state, you'd have to acknowledge state meaning governments - city, state, county, federal

 

[OKTexas]

Jesus Christ, your idiocy grows by the page:

One item is about the powers of the legislative branch of the federal government to take possession of things by way of purchase.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

----------

The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------

The federal government can and does with due process of law, deprive people of life, liberty, or property.

and read up on things not of right wing challenges to existing reality

USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Don't have any idea where you came up with that but the State meaning one of the several States and the Federal Government have never been used interchangeably in the Constitution.

States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain.

Edit: Property in the Constitutional sense would be what we call personal property, not real property as in land.

your highlight in blue shows where I wasn't clear enough for your simple mind. The sentence in question was NOT quoting the term 'state' from this sentence 'Consent of the Legislature of the State'

What I wrote were two segments on two separate items from the USC. Both were preceded by bold text to differentiate the two arguments. I actually wrote "The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain." with a lower case 's' in state. I went back in here and put a spacer in there for you.

If you followed up you'd have read "The federal government’s power of eminent domain has long been used in the United States to acquire property for public use. Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government." - USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Your wingnutty insistence on ignoring facts like 'property' including land is par for the course

and "States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain" conveniently leaves out "states, meaning governments" in order to bolster your warped and pathetic sense of being in possession of even a rudimentary critical thinking skill set. If you used small case 's' for state, you'd have to acknowledge state meaning governments - city, state, county, federal

Cities and counties get their eminent domain authority from State laws, the States can expand or reduce that authority at their discretion. Per Clause 17 the feds can only purchase land in a State with their consent. Watch carefully, there are going to be federal court cases coming very shortly concerning Clause 17 and the lands congress has legislative authority over.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Then 'arms' would be limited to muskets? As this was what the term was understood to mean per the founders.

And of course, almost none of the terms used in the constitution were defined by the constitution. What is 'probable' per the constitution? What is 'unreasonable'? What is 'natural-born'?

Depends on who you ask. And while opinions vary, authority doesn't. Adjudication over all cases that arise under the constitution is delegated to the federal judiciary.

Delegated??? Where does the constitution say that.? Fact is the judiciary simply GRANTED itself the power to interpret the constitution. The tenth amendment gave the power to the states.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[. With the courts delegated the authority to adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Again you lie. Article 3 says "The judicial power shall extend to cases in law and equity arising under this constitution". But repealing laws is NOT a judicial power, it's a legislative power and the very first words of the constitution after the preamble are " All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."


If you think a law is unconstitutional, then you ask congress , not some unelected judges to repeal it. THINK

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then 'arms' would be limited to muskets? As this was what the term was understood to mean per the founders.

And of course, almost none of the terms used in the constitution were defined by the constitution. What is 'probable' per the constitution? What is 'unreasonable'? What is 'natural-born'?

Depends on who you ask. And while opinions vary, authority doesn't. Adjudication over all cases that arise under the constitution is delegated to the federal judiciary.

Delegated??? Where does the constitution say that.? Fact is the judiciary simply GRANTED itself the power to interpret the constitution. The tenth amendment gave the power to the states.

Incorrect.

Judicial review existed prior to the Constitution and was practiced by Colonial courts, where the Founding Generation expected the courts to likewise invalidate state and local laws repugnant to the Constitution.

In fact, the Founding Document itself acknowledges and codifies the authority of the courts to engage in judicial review:

[T]he word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation.

The Yale Law Journal - Forum: Why We Have Judicial Review

Consequently, it was the original intent of the Framers that the courts should review state laws for legitimacy and by doing so determine the meaning of the Constitution.

As for the 10th Amendment, it was never the intent of the Framers that the states should be allowed to interfere with the Federal government, or ignore Federal laws or the rulings of the Federal courts:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

Granted powers both expressed and implied, such as Congress passing the Fair Labor Standards Act as authorized by the Commerce Clause, and determined Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

[OKTexas]

Then 'arms' would be limited to muskets? As this was what the term was understood to mean per the founders.

And of course, almost none of the terms used in the constitution were defined by the constitution. What is 'probable' per the constitution? What is 'unreasonable'? What is 'natural-born'?

Depends on who you ask. And while opinions vary, authority doesn't. Adjudication over all cases that arise under the constitution is delegated to the federal judiciary.

Delegated??? Where does the constitution say that.? Fact is the judiciary simply GRANTED itself the power to interpret the constitution. The tenth amendment gave the power to the states.

Incorrect.

Judicial review existed prior to the Constitution and was practiced by Colonial courts, where the Founding Generation expected the courts to likewise invalidate state and local laws repugnant to the Constitution.

In fact, the Founding Document itself acknowledges and codifies the authority of the courts to engage in judicial review:

[T]he word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation.

The Yale Law Journal - Forum: Why We Have Judicial Review

Consequently, it was the original intent of the Framers that the courts should review state laws for legitimacy and by doing so determine the meaning of the Constitution.

As for the 10th Amendment, it was never the intent of the Framers that the states should be allowed to interfere with the Federal government, or ignore Federal laws or the rulings of the Federal courts:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

Granted powers both expressed and implied, such as Congress passing the Fair Labor Standards Act as authorized by the Commerce Clause, and determined Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in the commerce clause that gives the feds any authority over labor or wages or anything other than interstate commerce, trade with the tribes and trade with other nations. Those powers were unconstitutionally granted by the courts.

 

[Skylar]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison

You might say Madison was a prophet.

What's interesting to note is two things: First, this statement from Madison's February 2nd, 1792 debate on the Cod Fishery Bill.

It is to be recollected that the terms "common defence and general welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them.

James Madison
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.
February 7, 1792.

Madison recognized that the great latitude of the 'common defense and general welfare' clauses was something that was occurring in 1792. "Three short years' after the government was founded under the constitution. Only 5 since the Federalist papers had been written.

Its hard to argue that a more expansive interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare' was not what the founders intended.....when that was the policy they were enacting within 3 years of passage of the constitution. These were the founders in office, the founders in congress. Washington was still the president, and hadn't even finished his first term with this bill being debated in only the 2nd congress.

To be sure, James Madison surely disagreed with the expansive interpretation of general welfare and common defense, and argued strongly against implied powers.

However, the founders disagreed. Or more accurately, a majority of the founders did. And I argue this is a pretty compelling expression of their will on the matter.

The second point to note.....is that the Cod Fishery Bill was passed by congress. This with direct opposition from James Madison using the very citation you've offered. And despite this, the founders embraced the expansive interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare'. Which again, I argue is a compelling expression of their will on the matter.