Is the 2nd Amendment Redundant?

[M14 Shooter]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?

Until 2008 the 2nd Amendment wasn't about personal self-defense. The USSC's 2008 decision made it officially about personal self-defense, and not about a militia.

When did the SCotUS rule that the 2nd was about a militia, to the exclusion of personal defense?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?

Until 2008 the 2nd Amendment wasn't about personal self-defense. The USSC's 2008 decision made it officially about personal self-defense, and not about a militia.

States wouldn't have all the rules and laws defining and limiting the 2nd Amendment if there was no 2nd Amendment.

You are beyond ignorant if you think that Liberals would not have destroyed the ownership of firearms with out the second, One need only look to New York city Washington DC and Chicago for examples of that. And you pretend otherwise, why?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and nut run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right can ultimately be exercised.

Did that anyway even with the 2nd.

Lemme put it another way. Forget about guns a moment. Someone comes at you with a hatchet threatening your life, you can respond with deadly force defending yourself. This basic right isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment. So if the 2nd didn't exist, you'd still have a legal right to self-defense.

Now, if you wanted to do an ounce of prevention and have a firearm ahead of actually needing it to defend yourself, absent the 2nd Amendment, how could they deny you the right to own whatever means of defense you chose? In this case a firearm.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and nut run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right can ultimately be exercised.

Did that anyway even with the 2nd.

Lemme put it another way. Forget about guns a moment. Someone comes at you with a hatchet threatening your life, you can respond with deadly force defending yourself. This basic right isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment. So if the 2nd didn't exist, you'd still have a legal right to self-defense.

Now, if you wanted to do an ounce of prevention and have a firearm ahead of actually needing it to defend yourself, absent the 2nd Amendment, how could they deny you the right to own whatever means of defense you chose? In this case a firearm.

And yet they DID. It is illegal to own a firearm in new York city without a permit, a Permit I might add that only certain connected people get. It was illegal in Washington DC to even have a firearm in your house. And in Chicago it was illegal to own firearms at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?

Until 2008 the 2nd Amendment wasn't about personal self-defense. The USSC's 2008 decision made it officially about personal self-defense, and not about a militia.

States wouldn't have all the rules and laws defining and limiting the 2nd Amendment if there was no 2nd Amendment.

You are beyond ignorant if you think that Liberals would not have destroyed the ownership of firearms with out the second, One need only look to New York city Washington DC and Chicago for examples of that. And you pretend otherwise, why?

Indeed. There's no question that the anti-gun loons will place as many restriction on the exercise of the right to arms as they possibly can; that a number of them argue for the removal or revision of the 2nd indicates that they see the 2nd as an obstacle to that goal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and nut run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right can ultimately be exercised.

Did that anyway even with the 2nd.

Lemme put it another way. Forget about guns a moment. Someone comes at you with a hatchet threatening your life, you can respond with deadly force defending yourself. This basic right isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment. So if the 2nd didn't exist, you'd still have a legal right to self-defense.

Now, if you wanted to do an ounce of prevention and have a firearm ahead of actually needing it to defend yourself, absent the 2nd Amendment, how could they deny you the right to own whatever means of defense you chose? In this case a firearm.

And yet they DID. It is illegal to own a firearm in new York city without a permit, a Permit I might add that only certain connected people get. It was illegal in Washington DC to even have a firearm in your house. And in Chicago it was illegal to own firearms at all.

2008 ruling might well override those sorts of virtual bans.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lemme put it another way. Forget about guns a moment. Someone comes at you with a hatchet threatening your life, you can respond with deadly force defending yourself. This basic right isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment. So if the 2nd didn't exist, you'd still have a legal right to self-defense.

Unquestionably.

Now, if you wanted to do an ounce of prevention and have a firearm ahead of actually needing it to defend yourself, absent the 2nd Amendment, how could they deny you the right to own whatever means of defense you chose? In this case a firearm.

I already addressed this - absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and nut run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right can ultimately be exercised.

That's the difference between gun rights with and without the 2A.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?

Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.

Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"

Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?

Until 2008 the 2nd Amendment wasn't about personal self-defense. The USSC's 2008 decision made it officially about personal self-defense, and not about a militia.

States wouldn't have all the rules and laws defining and limiting the 2nd Amendment if there was no 2nd Amendment.

You are beyond ignorant if you think that Liberals would not have destroyed the ownership of firearms with out the second, One need only look to New York city Washington DC and Chicago for examples of that. And you pretend otherwise, why?

Which part of post 2 didn't you understand? Maybe people like you are why some don't want dumb panicky animals to play with guns.

 

[Tennyson]

The Bill of Rights is not a limiter of individual or states’ rights. Any attempt force a collective of the term “people” in the Second Amendment cannot be supported by a single statement by the men who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment, much less a preponderance of evidence, which would be empirical to state as fact that gun rights are collective. The first eight amendments regarded only individual rights and are delineated from the Ninth and Tenth Amendments regarding the states and individuals. Moreover, the mention of “people” in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments designated individuals. If Madison, the delegates at the Philadelphia convention, or the state ratifying conventions believe that the right to bear arms was a collective right that limitation of a collective right to bear arms would have been in Article 1, Section 8 in the militia clauses, not in the Bill of Rights.

The foundational principle of the individual right regarding self-defense or protection precedes the formation of government.

The term “people” in the construction of the First, Forth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments denoted the individual. To argue that the term “people” was a collective right in the Second Amendment is a non sequitur.

 

[Abatis]

Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?

The 2nd Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) was never intended to be applied to state action or restrain state action. None were applied to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Even then not all were applied and we have seen incremental application through "selective incorporation" with the 2nd Amendment only being applied to the states in 2010 (McDonald v Chicago). There is much work to do challenging existing state and local laws before the 2nd Amendment's protections are fully enforceable upon states.

 

[Abatis]

The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and not run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right. if any, can ultimately be exercised.

Generally true, the right to arms in a state is dependent upon that state's constitutional protections. States without a right to arms provision in their constitutions have seen the most draconian gun control enacted (e.g., California, New York, New Jersey).

The interesting thing is that in those states this could, in the end, work to gun rights supporter's advantage. Since those states never developed a sophisticated legal structure defending their laws they just lazily relied on 20th century lower federal court decisions in which the "militia right" & "state's right" were hatched (see footnote).

In Heller, all of the various "collective right" interpretations have been invalidated and the gun control schemes that have been upheld by citing --state's / militia / collective right-- are fatally infirm making them easy pickin's, e.g., Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968).

As an ancillary argument, speaking just from constitutional principle, the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government forces some federal protections of rights upon the states and the right to arms is of a peculiar nature.

To look further into what restrictions states are allowed to enact on the citizen's arms, we have a good insight from an early case from SCOTUS.

In Presser the Court found that the 2nd Amendment did not provide any immunity for private citizens allowing them to assemble and march bearing arms, without permit from local or state authorities. The Court, noting Cruikshank, (right to arms not granted by the 2ndA, etc), took the opportunity to examine the right to arms on a deeper level, separate and apart from the 2nd Amendment.

The Court said:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."​

This is a mutual aid principle; neither the feds nor the states can disarm the citizenry because each rely on those same citizens for their defense. Since an armed citizery / general militia is a foundational concept of the republic established by the Constitution ("undoubtedly true" the Court tells us) the federal government can not allow a state to act in an UN-republican manner, disarming the people who the feds and other stats rely on.

The full application of this principle would seem to eliminate the need for incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and to solidify the protection sphere for arms that "constitute the ordinary military equipment" and that "can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens", i.e., "assault weapons" (which it already is, US v Miller).



foot note:

U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) is where the "state's right" interpretation was inserted in the federal courts and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) is responsible for the "militia right" interpretation.

 

[Tennyson]

The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and not run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right. if any, can ultimately be exercised.

Generally true, the right to arms in a state is dependent upon that state's constitutional protections. States without a right to arms provision in their constitutions have seen the most draconian gun control enacted (e.g., California, New York, New Jersey).

The interesting thing is that in those states this could, in the end, work to gun rights supporter's advantage. Since those states never developed a sophisticated legal structure defending their laws they just lazily relied on 20th century lower federal court decisions in which the "militia right" & "state's right" were hatched (see footnote).

In Heller, all of the various "collective right" interpretations have been invalidated and the gun control schemes that have been upheld by citing --state's / militia / collective right-- are fatally infirm making them easy pickin's, e.g., Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968).

As an ancillary argument, speaking just from constitutional principle, the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government forces some federal protections of rights upon the states and the right to arms is of a peculiar nature.

To look further into what restrictions states are allowed to enact on the citizen's arms, we have a good insight from an early case from SCOTUS.

In Presser the Court found that the 2nd Amendment did not provide any immunity for private citizens allowing them to assemble and march bearing arms, without permit from local or state authorities. The Court, noting Cruikshank, (right to arms not granted by the 2ndA, etc), took the opportunity to examine the right to arms on a deeper level, separate and apart from the 2nd Amendment.

The Court said:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."​

This is a mutual aid principle; neither the feds nor the states can disarm the citizenry because each rely on those same citizens for their defense. Since an armed citizery / general militia is a foundational concept of the republic established by the Constitution ("undoubtedly true" the Court tells us) the federal government can not allow a state to act in an UN-republican manner, disarming the people who the feds and other stats rely on.

The full application of this principle would seem to eliminate the need for incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and to solidify the protection sphere for arms that "constitute the ordinary military equipment" and that "can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens", i.e., "assault weapons" (which it already is, US v Miller).



foot note:

U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) is where the "state's right" interpretation was inserted in the federal courts and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) is responsible for the "militia right" interpretation.

Here is a section antipodal to the incorporation clause Presser v. Illinois:

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police; 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.​

See also Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. The State of Ohio, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cowen, 819; Commonwealth v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Iredell, 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heiskell, 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455​

The court also ruled on the right of bearing arms that is divorced from the Second Amendment citing that Article I, §8, Clause 15 is only enforceable on the states if the state restricted firearms to a degree to deprive the federal government of its powers of “calling forth the militia.”

 

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the perils of living under a monarchy. Franklin's quote "we must all hang together or surely we will hang separately" says it all. The Bill of Rights wasn't created by the Founding Fathers to award citizens a bunch of freedoms that they didn't already have. The Bill of Rights aka the 1st ten Amendments to the Constitution were restrictions on future government expansion. The United States would have been out of business years ago if it wasn't for that pesky document.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and not run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right. if any, can ultimately be exercised.

Generally true, the right to arms in a state is dependent upon that state's constitutional protections. States without a right to arms provision in their constitutions have seen the most draconian gun control enacted (e.g., California, New York, New Jersey).

FYI....By "the state" I meant "the government", at any level, not the 50 states specifically.

 

[Abatis]

Here is a section antipodal to the incorporation clause Presser v. Illinois:

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police; 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.​

​

Why would you characterize that exposition on the action of the 2nd as antipodal to the exposition on the right to arms?

The court also ruled on the right of bearing arms that is divorced from the Second Amendment citing that Article I, §8, Clause 15 is only enforceable on the states if the state restricted firearms to a degree to deprive the federal government of its powers of “calling forth the militia.”

Sorry, I'm not following that point at all . . .

 

[Tennyson]

Here is a section antipodal to the incorporation clause Presser v. Illinois:

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police; 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.​

​

Why would you characterize that exposition on the action of the 2nd as antipodal to the exposition on the right to arms?

The court also ruled on the right of bearing arms that is divorced from the Second Amendment citing that Article I, §8, Clause 15 is only enforceable on the states if the state restricted firearms to a degree to deprive the federal government of its powers of “calling forth the militia.”

Sorry, I'm not following that point at all . . .

The first sentence is missing vis-a-vis between clause and Presser.

The believe the point is self-explanatory

 

[Abatis]

The first sentence is missing vis-a-vis between clause and Presser.

The believe the point is self-explanatory

Ummm, OK, yeah, . . . thanks.

That sure clears it up.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes, but it's one of those things that needed to be elucidated for future generations in the event they were purposely shielded from knowledge of their pre-existing rights.

The Second Amendment is how the Founding Fathers trolled all authoritarian scumlords for all eternity. It's the most clever use of human language ever devised and what has so far kept the United States the only country with a citizenry that has more combined force than its government in the 21st cenutry (and given that the US Government is the most powerful and well equipped and furnished government in the world and in all history, our citizenry has the combined power exceeding our government means A LOT, the Japanese didn't even dare launch an invasion of our mainland because of it during WWII, "a rifle behind every blade of grass").

Without the 2nd Amendment, we'd be disarmed like every other eurotrash nation.

 

[Tennyson]

The first sentence is missing vis-a-vis between clause and Presser.

The believe the point is self-explanatory

Ummm, OK, yeah, . . . thanks.

That sure clears it up.

I'm not following what you are saying, or perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. The Presser ruling was long after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and part of the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government, thus negating any 20th century nonsense of the Bill of Rights being incorporated. It is a first generation understanding of the 14th Amendment v. 20th century judicial activism regarding the incorporation doctrine.

Regarding the second part, Article I, Section 8 provided the right to bear arms prior to the Bill of Rights.

 

[Abatis]

I'm not following what you are saying, or perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. The Presser ruling was long after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and part of the ruling was that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government, thus negating any 20th century nonsense of the Bill of Rights being incorporated.

That part of Presser relied on Cruikshank. The only reason the Court did not enforce the 2nd Amendment under the 14th in Cruikshank was that the people who disarmed Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman were not state agents but private citizens (the Louisiana state militia having been disbanded by the republican governor).

The Cruikshank holding was not a blanket ruling for the right to arms under the 14th Amendment. That ruling was specific to Cruikshank (as was Presser -- "Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law."). Had the Court held that private citizens had a right to military drill and parade under arms, independent of law, the Court would have rejected any claim that Illinois made to prosecute Presser et al, and applied the 14th Amendment to negate state law.

It is a first generation understanding of the 14th Amendment v. 20th century judicial activism regarding the incorporation doctrine.

"First generation" understanding was applied in The Slaughterhouse Cases which gutted the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause. The only legal mechanism left in the 14th to apply to challenged state laws was the due process clause which demanded excruciating case by case examination . . . That's what begot the selective incorporation doctrine.

I don't like it either, but I accept the intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the first 8 Amendments enforceable on the states, so it's all SCOTUS has to work with until it reverses Slaughterhouse. (Of course penumbral rights theory has been employed by the Court as essentially a Slaughterhouse work-around)

Regarding the second part, Article I, Section 8 provided the right to bear arms prior to the Bill of Rights.

LOL. The right to arms is not a product of the Constitution. To double-down on your error and say that it was provided by the Article that sets-out the federal legislative power, is just laughable.