"which does impose restrictions." [Edit addition]

Quote.

"Yes, silence imposes no restrictions."

Correct. The natural state of commerce is free and open. Any regulation of that commerce is a restriction.

The powers not delegated

Commerce clause

Commerce clause

The power to regulate commerce among the several states is delegated - while the power to regulate that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is not.

Have you ever read it?

Necessary and proper

Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper for regulating commerce among the several states.

Feel free to so establish.

Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper

Backwards. Until proven otherwise. The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions.

The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions.

Quote.

The idea that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the limits on Congress' authority is ludicrous even for you - and that's saying something.

Quote.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"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."

Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.

At least try.

"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."

A swing and a miss by you. The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.

The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.

Of course it does.

"Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914)

Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.

At least try. Don't be such a coward.

The natural state of commerce is free and open.

"PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it." --Ambrose Bierce

ConservingFreedom (#203) ---- The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.

Of course it does.-- roscoe

The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary,proper, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL.

As usual, roscoe doesn't have a clue...

"Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914)

No help for you there - it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate for the protection and advancement of interstate commerce, either.

Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius

requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.

Yet another of your straw men - I never said a word about "to my satisfaction."

it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate

to enact "all appropriate legislation"

"to my satisfaction."

You have failed to identify any other party.

[CF:] Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius

Which, to chew your food for you, disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper.

disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions"

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"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."

Poor you.

ConservingFreedom (#207 --- it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate

to enact "all appropriate legislation" --- Roscoe

To enact 'all constitutionally appropriate legislation'.

Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.

Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?

The powers in the constituion are delegated powers.

And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent.

Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.

If you think judicial review is constitutionally grounded - do you? - then quite plausibly the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is "necessary and proper."

Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?

No, only of federal law - state laws exist and have their validity independent of the federal constitution (which was ratified by the states).

moronic disinterpretations

Actual language of the Constitution. Of course, you Constitution-haters prefer judicial activism.

"disinterpretations"

Is that a word?

"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."

So who should decide their extent?

Is that a word?

The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't.

The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions

Yep

So who should decide their extent?

That would be ConservingFreedom, silly. Just as the Constitution clearly says in a penumbral emanation.

Is that a word?

It's a malapoop.

"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."

So

Are we agreed on that point?

who should decide their extent?

As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative.

exercising their checks

Quote the "check."

[crickets]

[DECEPTIVELY OMIITED BY ROSCOE: Your moronic disinterpretation is "]The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions".

Yep

For the record, you're a liar and a clumsy stupid one to boot - not that anyone on this forum doesn't already know it.

[crickets]

Quote the "check."

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison

1. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7

2. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison

1. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Poor you.

2. And the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to determine what the laws should be regarding commerce among the states, and to enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying those laws into execution.

Another nice foot shot.

Article 1 Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Poor you.-- roscoe

Poor roscoe, attempting to prove that the legislative power to override a presidential veto negates the checks and balances inherent in our constitution..

Weird fella.

Weird fella.

It must be some sort of compulsive behavior - he can't possibly think his posts fool anyone (although his little buddy is at least willing to pretend).

Another epic fail for CF.

It must be some sort of compulsive behavior ----

Obsessive compulsive, as we see in his grandiose 'epic fail' howler.

"The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't."

The parallel? They both start with dis-.

Other than that, I see no parallel at all.

"Are we agreed on that point?"

Not in the least.

"As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative."

Wrong. Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions.

Exactly, although majority rule communitarians, like Paulsen/misterwhite, insist that Congress can prohibit damn near anything, using the commerce clause.

Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions. --- misterwhite

There is no power to prohibit in our Constitution.

Not in the least.

Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?

Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?

You've got it exactly backwards.

What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?

What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?

Roscoe

Poor backward roscoe, can't read or understand the 10th Amendment.