Misunderstanding Necessary and Proper

Madison said the following about the General Welfare Clause:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." -James Madison

Then he said the following about the Necessary and Proper Clause:

“…there is a general power given to them [Congress] to make all laws that will enable them to carry their powers into effect. There are no limits pointed out. They are not restrained or controlled from making any law, however oppressive in its operation, which they may think necessary to carry their powers into effect.”

How he could see the danger of the General Welfare Clause and not the Necessary and Proper Clause is beyond me. Both of them have been abused to the point of giving Congress unlimited power.

I've never seen this guy before, so maybe he means what he's saying; but I detect some pretty strong sarcasm. It seems to me that he is making fun of people who who actually believe that "the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything that isn’t specifically spelled out in the Constitution – end of argument”. Even the way he dressed was farsical.

Because the commentator in this video has absolutely no understanding of this basic constitutional principle, he feels the need to make a sarcastic attack on the Constitution itself...

Hey Michael...the man who is currently President also you may recall...delivered another brillant comment about the Constituion...on tape when he was not Presiddent..
and he whoi supposedly taught Constitutional law...
He told us that the Constitution (my paraphrase..correct me if I am off here in the paraphrase meaning) is mostly about what the central government can not do and that it does not tell us what it can do...

Now..this comment was intended by him to be a criticism of the Constitution.....i.e. something wrong or lacking in it..that he and the centralists are busily working to correct...

Right ..Barack Obama...I wonder why the Founders were concerned about limiting central authority...could it be that that is and was one of the if not the main reason for seeking freedom from England and to start a country ..i.e. America... or did President Obama not read that part of our history

Michael, probably a standard logic flowchart would be a good, concise response to comments/inquiries like that.

Principles behind understanding how to construe powers set forth in the Constitution.

Necessary & Proper:

There must be a proximal connection between a proposed act deemed "necessary and proper" and the primary power sought to be implemented. "Proximal" means closely related in the sequence between cause and effect. The concept of "proximate cause" is used widely throught Common Law jurisprudence.

An example of proximate cause analysis occurs in cases of recovery for damages caused by negligence.

Driver X is distracted with cell phone, runs stop sign and causes accident. Under the Common Law, the accident victim is entitled to recover for damages proximately caused by an actor in the chain of sequence. Victim sues Driver X and the auto manufacturer.

The most notable way under Common Law to determine if certain conduct is a proximate cause is to ask the question, "but for" the conduct, would the damages have been caused:

(1) Driver X. But for Driver X's inattention while driving, would the damages have occurred? The answer is "no." Therefore Driver X's conduct is a proximate cause.

(2) Car manufacturer. But for the manufacture of the car, would the damages have occurred? How could there be any connection of a direct enough nature to answer "yes?" Sure, the accident could not happen without a car, but the existence of the car itself is insufficient. The car can exist, but it would not have caused the accident if Driver X was not negligent. Driver X's conduct is necessary to precipitate the damages. Another way to look at it is to observe that Driver X's conduct is a necessary intervening cause for the accident to occur. Therefore, the manufacture of the car is too remote a cause. It is thus, not a proximate cause.

Let's now use this basic principle of Common Law, to legally construe the Necessary & Proper Clause:

(1) Proposed act is part and parcel of exercising listed power
(e.g. post offices -> buying land to build and operate post office)

Result: Constitutional. Building post offices is proximately
related to establishing a postal service.

(2) Proposed act is not proximately connected to listed power
(e.g. post offices -> national welfare program)

Result: Unconstitutional. While a person might logically make an indirect connection that a national welfare program might help people afford to use the postal service, it is not a proximal connection.

Another way to examine this scenario is to make a logical interpretation. It is easy to note that without a requirement that the proposed act be proximate, there would be no need to list the powers that Congress has in the Constitution. Just about any act can philosophically affect the postal service, no matter how indirect it might be. Without a requirement of a proximate connection, Congress can do anything it wants and point out, in defense of its actions, that there is at least some metaphysical impact on the listed power.

Therefore, an expansive construction of the Necessary and Proper Clause would allow that clause to gobble up the listed causes, rendering the list, which was designed to restrict powers by enumerating them, meaningless. Under an expansive view of the clause, one would have to logically concede that the Constitution might as well have been written to leave out all the enumerated powers and merely state, "Congress has the power to do what it wants."

I like that you use the example of buying land and hiring workers for post offices. That's the same example I use to explain the clause.

I happen to agree with some of his points. What authority does the US have to have Medicare or to regulate internet, air waves and nuclear power? He goes overboard on some of the other examples, but on these, he's actually right. The irony is that the poor guy doesn't know it.

this tool looks like he is trying too hard to dress like a conservative.. and failing badly