Source: http://voluntarysociety.org/government/history/article1section8.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:55:14+00:00

Document:
Article 1, Section 8 is the most important part of the Constitution. It is the portion of the Constitution from which the Congress derives its power, both to tax and to spend money for the "general welfare." For this reason it is the heart of the Constitution. Here, we explore the issue of whether the Congress is a general sovereign body, having the power to enact any law which it determines will "provide for the common defense and general welfare," subject only to specific constitutional prohibitions; or are the powers of Congress restricted by a tighter meaning given to this Section by the Framers? The Constitution is a well constructed machine with a handcrafted engine, based on a set of principles that were well thought out and learned from experience. But how was it crafted? And just how big is the engine in this machine?
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.
"Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt." The laws consist, not in being read, but in being understood. ** This section, containing but one long sentence (the only period contained in the section is at the end), is the most significant part of the Constitution. It took nearly the full length of the Constitutional Convention to write it. Discussion on its design and meaning began only a few days after the beginning of the Convention in May, and was not completed until a few days before the end of the Convention in the middle of September of 1787. It is practically the whole reason for the existence of the Constitution. This is the power unit of the government; it grants the power to Congress to tax and spend; all else merely determines the form of the government. Without it there would be no reason, no purpose, like an automobile without an engine, for the rest of the Constitution. In terms of relative importance, the rest of the Constitution is mere embellishment that is fit around it, like the body and drive train of a car around the engine. A mechanic who understands everything about cars but their engines does not understand cars. Ferdinand Lundberg described the limitations on government in the Constitution as only, "amounting to a determination of the internal etiquette of the government." Yet Article 1, Section 8 is the connection between Congress and the rest of the world. If there are any real general limitations on the Federal government they must be found here or they do not exist. Article III provides for a judiciary with judgment to interpret the laws of Congress and act as a brake in terms of the Constitution. If Congress attempts to exert a power not granted by the Constitution it is the duty of the judiciary to nullify it, but only if the issue comes before it.++ The Executive branch of Article II, like a transmission, carries out and applies the power created by the will of Congress. Yet it is within the authority of the President to thwart Congress when it attempts to act beyond its granted powers. Classic examples of Presidential statements of this authority to throw the transmission into neutral will be shown in following chapters. This book is a study of the meaning of this section of the Constitution which gives Congress its power. The Founding Fathers did not kick the absolutism of the King out of the colonies only to replace it with the absolutism of Congress. It was intended by the Framers from the beginning that the ultimate power resides in the people and that Congress should only have power that the Framers considered necessary and could safely be given to it for the good of the nation. "Potentia non est nisi ad bonum." Power is not conferred but for the public good. This is only right, since all government power exists at the expense of the people.
While the world is laced with phoney "peoples republics," the United States has an authentic "peoples" government. We The People established the Constitution and Congress is a creature of the Constitution. Congress derives its authority from Article 1 of the Constitution. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article 1, Section 1). The California State Assembly publishes a document 1 for distribution containing the Constitution of the United States. It lists two sets of limitations on the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8; that is Article 1, Section 9 (The document titles Article 1, section 9: "Limitations on powers granted to the United States" + ; it is notable that it does not say "Limitations on the powers of the United States."), and it says, "for other limitations see Amendments I-X." Which means that whatever granted legislative powers the Congress may have been granted, they cannot legislate a violation of an individual's rights2 in order to implement those powers. Yet, we contend that our form of government was not designed to merely forbid the Federal government to do certain things. It was designed to allow the Federal government to do only certain things; and, even then, written restrictions were placed on the means by which the ends could be accomplished. If this contention is to be demonstrated, the question here before us comes from another direction. Is there an intended leak in Article 1, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to determine what the general welfare is? Lundberg, referring to the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8, said, "the broadest of these is to provide for the 'general welfare of the United States', which makes only the sky the limit because what arguably constitutes welfare is extremely broad and diverse. One man's welfare is another man's poison, so what promotes welfare must depend from time to time on the decision of some limited number of persons. It isn't something self evident." *** But, did the Founders leave the important power to Congress to decide what subjects would serve for the public welfare? Or did they fix a list of specific powers of Congress? Does Congress have legitimate power to legislate on any subject or spend for whatever they think is good for us, the American people? In effect, to tax money from the people and spend that money to subvert and violate the peoples' rights and destroy their independence by an indirect path in the name of the "general welfare?" Do they have the power to spend unlimited tax dollars, for which we the people work hard, on their own idea of the common good? Or is it that we the people have already determined, for ourselves what the "general welfare" is? and that the Congress has no lawful power to legislate outside those narrow boundaries that we the people have already determined to be the "general welfare of the United States?" It is a serious question for which even attorneys in the Federal Government recognize and provide a definite answer.
"Potestas stricte interpretatur." Power should be strictly interpreted. We are witnessing continual deliberate attempts, by those who were elected, appointed and hired to serve in positions of trust, to consolidate power and change themselves from temporary governing individual trustees into a permanent ruling class; to slowly, imperceptibly alter the correct order of things here in America. The basic moral principle of the granted powers was formulated and stated by the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Locke was the most important legitimate political theoretician in history; the liberal preference for Marx and Lenin not withstanding. Marx and Lenin don't deserve to stand in the same room with Locke.
"For in reason all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery."
1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA authorized by the California State Assembly Rules Committee. 2 see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 491; Frost Trucking Co. v. R. R. Com., 271 U. S. 583, 592-4 U. S. Supreme Court. The specific prohibitions on Congress that are written in the Constitution are few in number. Why? In Federalist Paper No. 84, Hamilton said: "I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to 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 colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" This statement could hardly come from one who believed the Constitution to confer a general power on the Federal government at the same time. In his concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 at 488-491, Justice Goldberg said of Hamilton's argument that, "The Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment, which provides, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,' were apparently also designed in part to meet the above quoted argument by Hamilton." In a Los Angeles Times article titled "Bill of Rights a Product of Politics, Not Principle," on Thursday, August 24, 1989 (Part 1, p. 18) Times Staff Writer David G. Savage said, ". . . when the new plan for a federal government was being drafted in Philadelphia, the framers of the Constitution, including James Madison of Virginia, had opposed a specific listing of individual rights in the Constitution. "They contended that such a listing was unnecessary because the new government was to have quite limited powers. Because the government had no authority to limit freedom of religion or the press, Madison reasoned, why mention the subjects at all and risk getting bogged down in peripheral issues?" Hamilton's and Madison's expert witness statements rip into the the Supreme Court's ruling in Flast v. Cohen 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (See ch. 15 infra) that one opposing a federal spending program "must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art.1, Sec. 8. . ." and allows the claimant to attack only spending "in violation of a specific constitutional protection against the abuse of the legislative power, i. e., the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46, 87-91 (1906) (see ch. 17 infra) demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court once upon a time knew that the Tenth Amendment is also a specific limitation on the powers of Congress. The Court displays serious symptoms of the fatal disease known as "convenient memory." Joseph Sobran of the Ludwig von Mises Institute said, "The most important provision of the Bill of Rights was not the First Amendment (which deals with only a few particular freedoms) but the 10th. Like the First, but in much broader language, the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the Federal government." By the Court's own reasoning in Flast v. Cohen, if there were no 1st Amendment, which Hamilton claimed would be unnecessary and dangerous, the Court would never prevent Congress from doing what Hamilton said, "there is no power to do." Thanks to the 1st Amendment, the Court allows Congress to do what, "there is no power to do," only almost all the time. The Court, in short, has made a liar out of John Marshall (ch. 14 infra). It is more than just a little strange that the Supreme Court should pay such homage to the First Amendment while ignoring the Tenth completely. The answer lies in the consequences resulting from the last time the Court rigorously enforced the Tenth Amendment. Joseph Sobran said, "Enraged, Roosevelt tried to enlarge the court so that he could swamp it with his hand-picked flunkies. He didn't succeed, but the court's natural turnover soon had the same effect. By 1940, the court submitted, pronouncing the 10th Amendment a mere 'truism,' of no real effect. It has been a dead letter, and an embarrassment, ever since." So the real reason the modern Court now ignores the big Tenth is-- lack of guts; its unwillingness to protect the People from the encroachments of the other two branches arises from no principle, arcane or obvious, but from expediency."
3 THE STATUS OF FEDERALISM IN AMERICA Chapter 1. This is a report of the Working Group on Federalism of the Domestic Policy Council. The Working Group on Federalism, established in August 1985, is an inter-agency working group consisting of representatives and attorneys of nine agencies and the White House.
4 THE OXFORD HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE by Samuel Eliot Morison (OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, New York; 1965), p. 271.
5 A HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL THEORIES by C. Edward Merriam (1903). See also THE CHRISTIAN HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES compiled by Verna M. Hall (FOUNDATION FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION, San Francisco, CA; 1978), p. 51. For Locke's dissertation most pertaining to the subject in this book, see Appendix A infra, THE MORAL BASIS OF THE GRANTED POWERS.
6 See Appendix A infra, THE MORAL BASIS OF THE GRANTED POWERS and HAMILTON ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. See also THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (2d par.) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." When vetoing an act of Congress on May 27, 1830, Andrew Jackson said, "This policy, like every other, must abide the will of the people. . .". See ch. 7 infra. Even in the baneful United States v. Butler case of 1936 (Ch. 14 infra), while it began the process of betraying the principle, the Supreme Court said, "The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people."; and many States have an equivalent to Article II, Section 1 of the California State Constitution, "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." "It has very truly been said that out of the mass of sovereignty intrusted to the states was carved a part and deposited with the United States. But this was taken by the people, and not by the states as organized communities. The people are the fountain of sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. The state governments were but trustees acting under a derived authority, and had no power to delegate what was delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they had leant and intrust it to whom they pleased. They had the whole title, and, as absolute proprietors, had the right of using or abusing. . ." BOUVIER'S, Vol. 3, p. 3372, (1914).
7 THE POWER IN THE PEOPLE by Felix Morley (D. VAN NOSTRAND, New York; 1959), p. 73.
8 THE ANNALS OF CONGRESS, Vol. 1, p. 451. See also Madison's Federalist Papers Nos. 37, 39, 49.
9 U. S. Constitution, Article VI - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the Contrary not withstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . .". See also Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176-9 (U. S. Supreme Court; 1803) in ch. 17 infra. See also Hamilton's Federalist Papers No. 33 and 78 or HAMILTON ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED in Appendix A infra.
10 See Appendix C infra.
* PREAMBLE an introductory clause in a constitution, statute, or other legal instrument which states the intent of that instrument; "a prefatory statement or explanation or a finding of facts by the power making it, purporting to state the purpose, reason, or occasion for making the law to which it is prefixed." 177 P. 742, 744. Steven Gifis, LAW DICTIONARY.
". . . Although that Preamble [the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States] indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom." Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (U.S. Supreme Court; 1904). "Generale nihil certi implicat." A general expression implies nothing certain. "Incerta pro nullis habentur." Things uncertain are held for nothing.
"The question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered into by the states, or the constitution is an organic law established by the people. To this question the preamble gives a decisive answer: We, the people, ordain and establish this constitution. The members of the convention which formed it were indeed appointed by the states. But the government of the states had only a delegated power, and, if they had an inclination, had no authority to transfer the allegiance of the people from one sovereign to another. The great men who formed the constitution were sensible of this want of power, and recommended it to the people themselves. They assembled in their own conventions and adopted it, acting in their original capacity as individuals, and not as representing states. The state governments are passed by in silence. They had no part in making it, and, though they have certain duties to perform, as the appointment of senators [now by popular vote under the 17th amendment], are properly not parties to it. The people in their capacity as sovereign made and adopted it; and it binds the state governments without their consent. The United States as a whole, therefore, emanates from the people, and not from the states, and the constitution and laws of the states, whether made before or since the adoption of that of the United States, are subordinate to it and the laws made in pursuance to it." BOUVIER'S (1914), Vol. 3, p. 3372.
"Sovereignty. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state: it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability,--to make laws, to execute and apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like." BOUVIER'S (1914), Vol. 3, p. 3096.
** Legal systems are generally logical systems. A maxim is a principle of law universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason. A maxim of law is said to be somewhat like an axiom in geometry, as opposed to a theorem, which is a proposition that can be proved from accepted premises. Maxims are recognized as self-evident truths requiring no proof, argument or discourse. Unless stated otherwise, the maxims in this book are from BOUVIER'S 1914 edition and are preceded by the Latin or French phrase.
*** CRACKS IN THE CONSTITUTION by Ferdinand Lundberg, (LYLE STUART INC., Secaucus N. J.; 1980) p. 181. Government funds are being appropriated to a multitude of purposes not restricted to objects germane to its delegated powers, on the principle that the Federal Government has unlimited power to appropriate money for the promotion of the "general welfare," and also because emergency conditions justify abnormal expenditures, even for private enterprises, State and local developments, and relief, which are not in themselves national character. Government is competing with private business and is establishing "yard-sticks" with which to measure and coerce private business. The "spheres" of Federal activity are being extended through the benefit of appropriations, and by coercive penalties inflicted upon the recalcitrants. Power is being concentrated in the Executive arm of the Federal Government through its granting of financial favors. DEMOCRATIC DESPOTISM by Raoul E. Desvernine (DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY, NEW YORK; 1936) pp. 170, 171.
**** Alexandria Va. columnist Alan Brownfeld, concluding that Marxist predictions have proved almost 100 per cent false, quoted one of the leading scholars of Marxism, Eugene Kamenka, "Marxism has failed us. It has failed as a science of society, as an ethic (ethics is conspicuously absent from Marxist theory) and as a political movement promising and working toward that 'true Communism' in which alienation, exploitation, and dehumanization would disappear... . Socialist democracy and justice, and socialist conceptions of human rights, have come to mean the opposite of justice, democracy, and human rights." ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, Santa Ana, CA, Sept. 17, 1989, p. J3.
+ As stated in THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA : "Headings and paragraph numbers have been inserted to assist the reader, and are not to be construed as a part of the Constitution. The original Constitution contains only article and section numbers." p. 35. The stated interpretation of the heading ("Powers Granted to the Congress") in the legislative handbook mentioned above, of Article 1, Section 8 is that this is the list of powers granted or delegated to Congress. All constitutional Federal power is channelled from the People through the Constitution to Congress, and from Congress, through statute, to the heads of various Federal agencies, and by regulation, from the head of the agency to the bureaucracy; e.g. through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the People granted Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. . ."; through 26 USC § 7801, Congress delegated authority to administer and enforce the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by Congress, to the Secretary of the Treasury. Through 26 USC 7701 §§ (11) & (12), Congress has set up the structure of the language of the Internal Revenue Code by which the Secretary of the Treasury has authority to delegate enforcement and administrative powers for various sections of the IRC to his agents and their agents within the Department of the Treasury through the Treasury Regulations (26 CFR) and specific delegation orders. Through 26 USC § 7802, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue receives all of his power entirely from the Secretary of the treasury.
++ "The constitution and laws made in pursuance of it,--that is, laws within their granted powers,--and all treaties, are the supreme law of the land, art. 6; and the judicial power, art. 3, section 1, gives to the supreme court the right of interpreting them. But this court is but another name for the United States, and this power necessarily results from their sovereignty; for the United States would not be truly sovereign unless their interpretation as well as the letter of the law governed. But this power of the court is confined to cases brought before them, and does not embrace principles independent of these cases. They have no power analogous to that of the Roman praetor of declaring the meaning of the constitution by edicts. Any opinion, however strongly expressed, has no authority beyond the reasoning by which it is supported, and binds no one. But the point embraced in the case is as much a part of the law as though embraced in the letter of the law or constitution, and it binds public functionaries, whether of the states or United States, as well as private persons; and this of necessity, as there is no authority above a sovereign to which an appeal can be made. "Another question of great practical importance arose at an early period of our government. The natural tendency of all concentrated power is to augment itself. Limitations of authority are not to be expected from those to whom power is intrusted; and such is the infirmity of human nature that those who are most jealous when out of power and seeking office are quite as ready practically to usurp it as any other. A general abrogation commonly precedes a real usurpation, to lull suspicion if for no other purpose." BOUVIER'S Vol 3, p. 3372 (1914).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art.1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7801
 § 7802
 art. 6
 art. 3