The Necessary and Proper clause supports my model.

Your and modern interpretation of the clause creates your model. That
doesn't make it right nor appropriate.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

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.

Your and modern interpretation of the clause creates your model. That
doesn't make it right nor appropriate.

The original intent was to have the states care for the welfare of the
people, NOT the federal government.

That intent still applies

and is still relevant.

In closing, and as I already said, your model eliminates the states.

This is no longer the United States, but rather the Fictitious United
People.

This is no longer the United States, but rather the Fictitious United
People.

I'm not fictitious. Maybe you are.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

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.


Your and modern interpretation of the clause creates your model. That
doesn't make it right nor appropriate.

The original intent was to have the states care for the welfare of the
people, NOT the federal government. That intent still applies and is
still relevant.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

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.


So, a democracy.

That's not the way the nation was set up. When did that change?

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

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.


Your and modern interpretation of the clause creates your model. That
doesn't make it right nor appropriate.

The original intent was to have the states care for the welfare of the
people, NOT the federal government. That intent still applies and is
still relevant.

Intent is flawed. The text should speak for itself. Or as you said,
"The courts must ONLY look at the Constitutional text". The text
supports my model.

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

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.


So, a democracy.

That's not the way the nation was set up. When did that change?

Nothing's changed. It was, and is, a constitutional, democratic republic.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:



Intent is flawed. The text should speak for itself. Or as you said,
"The courts must ONLY look at the Constitutional text". The text
supports my model.


Then look at the text. What are the words that are used?

UNITED STATES

Not PEOPLE.

You choose, intent, text, or both. In any case, there is no provision
for PEOPLE.

Plain.

Simple.

Correct.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


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.



So, a democracy.

That's not the way the nation was set up. When did that change?


Nothing's changed. It was, and is, a constitutional, democratic
republic.


Read the Declaration of Independence. The foundation is not democracy,
but rather the securing of rights. Rights can't be voted away, but
under your premise of democracy, they can.

When did that change?

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:



Intent is flawed. The text should speak for itself. Or as you said,
"The courts must ONLY look at the Constitutional text". The text
supports my model.


Then look at the text. What are the words that are used?

UNITED STATES

Not PEOPLE.

You choose, intent, text, or both. In any case, there is no provision
for PEOPLE.

Plain.

Simple.

Correct.

The text says: "The Congress shall have Power To [...] make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [...] To
lay and collect Taxes, [...] to [...] provide for the [...] general
Welfare of the United States"

Providing for the welfare of the people is necessary and proper for
providing for the welfare of the United States (where United States does
not mean the people). The text supports my model.

Then look at the text. What are the words that are used?

UNITED STATES

Not PEOPLE.

You choose, intent, text, or both. In any case, there is no provision
for PEOPLE.

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:



Intent is flawed. The text should speak for itself. Or as you said,
"The courts must ONLY look at the Constitutional text". The text
supports my model.


Then look at the text. What are the words that are used?

UNITED STATES

Not PEOPLE.

You choose, intent, text, or both. In any case, there is no provision
for PEOPLE.

Plain.

Simple.

Correct.

The text says: "The Congress shall have Power To [...] make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [...]
To lay and collect Taxes, [...] to [...] provide for the [...] general
Welfare of the United States"

Providing for the welfare of the people is necessary and proper for
providing for the welfare of the United States (where United States does
not mean the people). The text supports my model.

And who decides where the mixture starts/stops?


Ultimately the voters who elect Congress and the President.


So, a democracy.

That's not the way the nation was set up. When did that change?

Nothing's changed. It was, and is, a constitutional, democratic republic.

Read the Declaration of Independence. The foundation is not democracy,
but rather the securing of rights.

Rights can't be voted away, but
under your premise of democracy, they can.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:



Intent is flawed. The text should speak for itself. Or as you
said, "The courts must ONLY look at the Constitutional text". The
text supports my model.



Then look at the text. What are the words that are used?

UNITED STATES

Not PEOPLE.

You choose, intent, text, or both. In any case, there is no
provision for PEOPLE.

Plain.

Simple.

Correct.


The text says: "The Congress shall have Power To [...] make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [...]
To lay and collect Taxes, [...] to [...] provide for the [...] general
Welfare of the United States"

Providing for the welfare of the people is necessary and proper for
providing for the welfare of the United States (where United States
does not mean the people). The text supports my model.


No, it doesn't. Your inference supports your model.

Peter Franks wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:



Intent is flawed. The text should speak for itself. Or as you
said, "The courts must ONLY look at the Constitutional text". The
text supports my model.



Then look at the text. What are the words that are used?

UNITED STATES

Not PEOPLE.

You choose, intent, text, or both. In any case, there is no
provision for PEOPLE.

Plain.

Simple.

Correct.


The text says: "The Congress shall have Power To [...] make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [...]
To lay and collect Taxes, [...] to [...] provide for the [...]
general Welfare of the United States"

Providing for the welfare of the people is necessary and proper for
providing for the welfare of the United States (where United States
does not mean the people). The text supports my model.


No, it doesn't. Your inference supports your model.

What inference?