The Environmental Protection agency finds no basis for existence in the U.S. Constitution

To rebut: The Regulation of Land and Naval Forces clearly refers to the army and navy. Land and naval both clearly modify 'forces,' this only refers to the army, obviously not to the actual land. The argument that the phrase 'provide for the common defense and general welfare' constitutes a separate power is refuted by the Founders themselves. In Federalist No. XLII, Madison says, "It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. " Madison, then, actually laughs at the notion that this is a separate power. He goes on, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power. Nothing is more natural nor common, than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. " Therefore, the power to tax and spend for the general welfare is not a separate power but is, in fact, limited to the other powers explicitly listed in Article 1, Section 8. As to the necessary and proper (elastic) clause, Federalist No. XLIV presents a comprehensive rebuttal of this concept. The space is not here sufficient to permit me to copy the entire argument, but the gist of Madison's contention is that this clause is intended only to allow Congress to pass laws specifically related to the enacting of the delegated powers. For example, under this clause the Congress can pass a law to establish a patent system with specific properties because the Constitution tells Congress that it may create a patent system, although it does not specify the particular form and functions of that patent system. What is clear, however, is that this power was clearly not intended to be a separate power but merely to allow effective legislation on those powers expressly delegated. He said, "No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. " This is clearly not a separate power; it is merely intended to give efficacy to the enactment of the powers delegated to the government. The commerce clause: It should be clear enough from my previous arguments that this clause does not authorize what we now call regulation. This clause was intended to apply only to the states as entities, not to private corporations of individuals. Its authority lay in preventing states from impeding the commerce of other states; it had no power to force businesses or citizens to act in a certain way. This concept is very clear in everything the founders said about the commerce clause: they intended it to remove impediments to commerce, not erect barriers themselves. My opponent said, "Preventing a lack of superintendence from destroying the Union requires regulation. " In what case has an environmental issue come close to destroying the Union? Environmental Protection agencies, in any form, would only erect impediments to commerce and never preserve the Union. Their existence is contrary to the philosophy of the founders and to the text of the document itself.