-Caveat Lector-
The authority for Executive Order BEYOND the Executive
Department aside ...
The tenth amendment was 'de-toothed' by Chief USURPING
Justice Marshall with McCulloch versus Maryland -- this
complements his declaration that the Court says what the
Law is in Marbury v. Madison, 1803. I wonder if Mr. Bill
could use SIMILAR 'reasoning' to declare Amendment 22
not applicable since it does not mention HIM by name.
Consider:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government
of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof.
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist #84
Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they
retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.
'We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this constitution for the United States of America.'
Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of
those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of
our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better
in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
...
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be
dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford
a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For
why declare that things shall not be done which there is no
power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the
liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power
is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not
contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power;
but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to
usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They
might urge with a semblance or reason, the constitution
ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing
against the abuse of an authority, which was not given.
Chief Justice Marshall
McCulloch versus Maryland
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of
establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But
there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the
Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or
implied powers and which requires that everything
granted shall be expressly and minutely described.
Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose
of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been
excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only
that the powers "not delegated to the United States,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the
States or to the people," thus leaving the question
whether the particular power which may become the
subject of contest has been delegated to the one
Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend
on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced
the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this
word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably
omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution,
to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of
which its great powers will admit, and of all the means
by which they may be carried into execution, would partake
of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be
embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be
understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires
that only its great outlines should be marked, its
important objects designated, and the minor ingredients
which compose those objects be deduced from the nature
of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained
by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to
be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the
language. Why else were some of the limitations found in
the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also
in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use
any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a
fair and just interpretation. In considering this question,
then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are
expounding.
Regard$,
--MJ
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do,
you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which
can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate
government. -- James Madison
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
