Peter Franks wrote:



Let's back up for a moment and clarify.

My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.

The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and unmistakable.

But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose that
the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?

Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they are
in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take a
specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.


You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

Consider my perfect example

I ... can't back up ... false statements.
... pointless...
-pf

* US * wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:36:48 -0700, Peter Franks <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
* US * wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:00:42 -0700, Peter Franks <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
* US * wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:16:13 -0700, Peter Franks <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
liberal wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:17 am, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
Nor does it have the /authority/.
"Promote the General Welfare.."
Congress does not have the authority to "Promote the General Welfare..".
Congress has the power to "provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States;".
What part of "emission standards" provides for the "common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"*?
*Note: the phrase can NOT be parsed, it must be left intact as that
was the intent of the delegated authority.
You aren't seriously arguing the "and" requires that all spending must
provide for defense and welfare at the same time?
I meant what I said, nothing more, nothing less.
What part of "emission standards" provides for the "common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"
Do you believe that sucking exhaust pipes has been good for you?
No, but not because of some imaginary grant of power.
General welfare definitely involves not poisoning the populace.
The grant of the authority extends to the general welfare of the United
States, not the populace.

Do you really believe that the USA would exist without its people?

No, I don't. But that isn't the point.

...There is a
distinction between "United States" and "populace"...

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Let's back up for a moment and clarify.

My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked.  THAT is what I'm referencing.

The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less.  Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant.  The grant is clear and
unmistakable.

But, returning to the current divergence:  let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked.  So what?  Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?

Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic.  Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic?  Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation.  As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic.  Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model.  While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles.  In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis.  The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices.  It is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation..

To the fullest extent, perhaps.  But the grant of power, at the federal
level, extends ONLY to the United States.

The constituent elements
(e.g. state governments) are then responsible, and presumably have the
necessary and proper power to administer to the people.

This is ALL about the division and delegation of responsibility.

Where it may (or may not) be necessary to provide for the general
Welfare of the people, the feds have not been granted that power.  They
have a very coarse/general grant, not specific.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Let's back up for a moment and clarify.

My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked.  THAT is what I'm referencing.

The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less.  Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant.  The grant is clear and
unmistakable.

But, returning to the current divergence:  let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked.  So what?  Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?

Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic.  Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic?  Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation.  As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic.  Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model.  While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles.  In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis.  The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices.  It is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation..
 In contrast in your hypothetical, it is not necessary and proper to
regulate the color of a vehicle in order to regulate traffic.

Let me ask a question, at the risk of having already asked it:

Do you advocate a central government with (virtually) all power, or a
confederation of sovereign states with a limited national government, or
something else?

Just wondering where you are coming from, because from what I can
gather, you are for the former.

Peter Franks wrote:


Let's back up for a moment and clarify.

My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.

The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and unmistakable.

But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose that
the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?

Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they are
in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take a
specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:



Let's back up for a moment and clarify.

My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.

The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.

But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?

Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.


You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation.

In contrast in your hypothetical, it is not necessary and proper to
regulate the color of a vehicle in order to regulate traffic.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:



Let's back up for a moment and clarify.

My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.

The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.

But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?

Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.


You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation.
In contrast in your hypothetical, it is not necessary and proper to
regulate the color of a vehicle in order to regulate traffic.

On Nov 3, 4:09 pm, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Let's back up for a moment and clarify.
My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.
The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.
But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?
Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.
You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.
I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation.
To the fullest extent, perhaps. But the grant of power, at the federal
level, extends ONLY to the United States.

Sorry, the Necessary and Proper clause permits the federal government
to enact laws that in isolation aren't authorized (providing for the
people), but become authorized when they are necessary and proper for
a granted power (providing for the nation).

The constituent elements
(e.g. state governments) are then responsible, and presumably have the
necessary and proper power to administer to the people.

This is ALL about the division and delegation of responsibility.

Where it may (or may not) be necessary to provide for the general
Welfare of the people, the feds have not been granted that power. They
have a very coarse/general grant, not specific.

The question isn't whether it is necessary to provide for the people.
It's whether providing for the people is necessary in providing for
the nation.

On Nov 3, 4:16 pm, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Let's back up for a moment and clarify.
My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.
The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.
But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?
Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.
You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.
I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation.
In contrast in your hypothetical, it is not necessary and proper to
regulate the color of a vehicle in order to regulate traffic.
Let me ask a question, at the risk of having already asked it:

Do you advocate a central government with (virtually) all power, or a
confederation of sovereign states with a limited national government, or
something else?

Just wondering where you are coming from, because from what I can
gather, you are for the former.

A mixture. Some issues need national policy, others can be decided
locally.

Just wondering where you are coming from, because from what I can
gather, you are for the former.

A mixture. Some issues need national policy, others can be decided
locally.

And who decides where the mixture starts/stops?

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:09 pm, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Let's back up for a moment and clarify.
My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.
The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.
But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?
Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general
welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the
nation.

To the fullest extent, perhaps. But the grant of power, at the federal
level, extends ONLY to the United States.


Sorry, the Necessary and Proper clause permits the federal government
to enact laws that in isolation aren't authorized (providing for the
people), but become authorized when they are necessary and proper for
a granted power (providing for the nation).

The constituent elements
(e.g. state governments) are then responsible, and presumably have the
necessary and proper power to administer to the people.

This is ALL about the division and delegation of responsibility.

Where it may (or may not) be necessary to provide for the general
Welfare of the people, the feds have not been granted that power. They
have a very coarse/general grant, not specific.


The question isn't whether it is necessary to provide for the people.
It's whether providing for the people is necessary in providing for
the nation.


And the proper application of the power is that the feds provide for the
welfare of the states, and the states provide for the welfare of the
people.

Your model eliminates the states.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:16 pm, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Let's back up for a moment and clarify.
My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.
The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.
But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?
Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general
welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the
nation.
In contrast in your hypothetical, it is not necessary and proper to
regulate the color of a vehicle in order to regulate traffic.

Let me ask a question, at the risk of having already asked it:

Do you advocate a central government with (virtually) all power, or a
confederation of sovereign states with a limited national government, or
something else?

Just wondering where you are coming from, because from what I can
gather, you are for the former.


A mixture. Some issues need national policy, others can be decided
locally.


And who decides where the mixture starts/stops?

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:09 pm, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Let's back up for a moment and clarify.
My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that
the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.
The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is
irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.
But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree
that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?
Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles
are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably
linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general
welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the
nation.

To the fullest extent, perhaps. But the grant of power, at the federal
level, extends ONLY to the United States.


Sorry, the Necessary and Proper clause permits the federal government
to enact laws that in isolation aren't authorized (providing for the
people), but become authorized when they are necessary and proper for
a granted power (providing for the nation).

The constituent elements
(e.g. state governments) are then responsible, and presumably have the
necessary and proper power to administer to the people.

This is ALL about the division and delegation of responsibility.

Where it may (or may not) be necessary to provide for the general
Welfare of the people, the feds have not been granted that power. They
have a very coarse/general grant, not specific.


The question isn't whether it is necessary to provide for the people.
It's whether providing for the people is necessary in providing for
the nation.


And the proper application of the power is that the feds provide for
the welfare of the states, and the states provide for the welfare of
the people.

Your model eliminates the states.

The Necessary and Proper clause supports my model.

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:16 pm, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Let's back up for a moment and clarify.
My answer that "No, it is not" was regarding the implication that
the
grant of power extends to the people simply because they are
inextricably linked. THAT is what I'm referencing.
The fact that they are (or aren't) inextricably linked is
irrelevant,
the grant of power is to the extent of the United States, nothing
more, nothing less. Linked, referenced, associated, whatever -
inextricable or not are irrelevant. The grant is clear and
unmistakable.
But, returning to the current divergence: let's decide to agree
that
they ARE inextricably linked. So what? Why does that presuppose
that the grant of power now unconditionally extends to the people?
Consider my perfect example, used previously, regarding the power to
regulate traffic. Traffic is inextricably linked to vehicles, does
that mean in your line of reasoning that 'regulation of traffic'
implies 'regulation of vehicles' regardless of whether or not they
are in or contribute to traffic? Under your model, yes, vehicles
are
subject to regulation. As are fuels, components, plastics, metals,
etc. because they are ALL inextricably linked to vehicles which are
inextricably linked to traffic. Therefore, we can quite easily take
a specific grant of power and extend it to virtually anything we so
chose by showing some time of inextricable or casual relationship.

You have not described my model. While you can't observe traffic
without the vehicles, traffic as a *concept* (movement), is separable
from the vehicles. In contrast, the nation as a *concept* is not
separable from the people.

I realized in answering Strabo, that the nuances of inextricably
linked
aren't necessary to the analysis. The Necessary and Proper clause
suffices. It is necessary and proper to provide for the general
welfare
of the people in order to provide for the general welfare of the
nation.
In contrast in your hypothetical, it is not necessary and proper to
regulate the color of a vehicle in order to regulate traffic.

Let me ask a question, at the risk of having already asked it:

Do you advocate a central government with (virtually) all power, or a
confederation of sovereign states with a limited national
government, or
something else?

Just wondering where you are coming from, because from what I can
gather, you are for the former.


A mixture. Some issues need national policy, others can be decided
locally.

And who decides where the mixture starts/stops?

Ultimately the voters who elect Congress and the President.