Originally posted by hawkiye
You mean like the literalists who wrote the constitution?
No, I mean the literalists who stop reading before they get to the end of Article I, Section 8, or simply refuse to believe it. The last clause is the
one that requires one to apply a certain amount of interpretation to the preceding clauses. Although, even if that clause were lacking, common sense
would tell one that the power to enact laws furthering the enumerated powers was implied. This is where literalists, as I use the term, part ways with
reality. They appeal to a reductionist reading of a selection of text in support of some position which they wish to defend. They do not take into
account other parts of the text which would tend against their favored interpretation of their selection. This is especially shameful when the
disregarded portion tells you how the text as a whole is to be interpreted, as the Constitution does via the Necessary and Proper Clause.
I also note, without further comment, that armies and militias are different things, and the Armies clause and the Militia clauses are separate and
distinct. A real literalist would therefore not interpret the Armies clause as a mere extension of the Militia clauses, as you have done.
Thanks for illustrating the ignorance of Americans on their own history! Are you seriously trying to say they Founders did not literally mean
what they said in writing the constitution?
No, I mean they literally meant what they said, but you are either not reading the whole thing or not interpreting it correctly.
Amazing! Then why did the literally do it exactly as I said they did until they were all dead and Lincoln shredded the constitution? Did the
constitution change meaning or did treasonous criminals subvert it?
Why is how they did it before Lincoln relevant? If you base your argument on historical precedent, you are departing from the literal language of the
Constitution, which empowers the government to enact "necessary and proper" laws to "raise Armies." Don't you believe the Framers of the
Constitution meant what they literally said? I fear I have become the Constitutional literalist (albeit I read more of the litera), and you are the
one who thinks the Founders did not literally mean what they said in writing the Constitution.
Have you considered the possibility that the draft was always Constitutionally permissible, but it was not "necessary and proper" until the
existential threat posed by the Civil War? That would explain the lack of a draft in the first half of the 19th century, a time of relatively limited
conflict. Have you considered the possibility that it remains "necessary and proper," even today, to maintain a registry of those who may be drafted
if the draft itself ever becomes "necessary and proper" again?
(I won't get into an argument about whether or not a draft existed before the Civil War. Let's just say it's fertile ground for debate but leave
that field fallow for the moment.)
The constitution is a restriction on the federal government ( the chains Jefferson speaks of) not the people. IF IT'S NOT IN THERE THEY
CAN'T DO IT!!! What part of that is so hard to understand...
I don't know, I'm trying to figure out why this is so hard for you to understand, but I'm hitting a wall here. I think it's because you reject
outright any argument that does not support your position, whether the argument comes from the Constitution, history, or the Supreme Court. If you're
fundamentally unwilling to engage with ideas, you won't understand those ideas.
Oh, and I can quote-mine, too. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 29:
It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring
the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws ... .
Don't think of it as conscription, think of it as providing required assistance to officers entrusted with the execution of lawful policy.