Okay so Ive been thinking of this for awhile now.
Most of us are aware of the doctrine of implied powers as proposed by Alexander Hamilton.
If the govt is granted a power, it ALSO has the implied power to get said power accomplished.
Therefore if the govt is empowered to build post offices; it has power to hire people to build them, buy the cement, etc..
We know of course that Hamilton snowballed this into the logic behind justifying the First Bank of the United States.
That being said.. even today as devil's advocate I could state how the federal reserve is Constitutional.. After all its a private company. They create their own money and nobody forces you to accept or spend their money.
That being said we all know this is just a fancy way to find a loophole thru the restrictions placed upon the govt from the constitution.
Therefore I propose the mirror image to the Doctrine of Implied Powers : That of Implied Restrictions.
In a nutshell:
Implied Powers: If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the constitution, all the means which are not prohibited may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.
Implied Restrictions: If the ends be illegitimate, in the sense that they seek to circumvent the restrictions in the Constitution then all means which are used to carry it into effect must be prohibited as unconstitutional.
Again this is a rough idea Ive had for awhile.. Im sure you guys can see where Im going with this.. And Im interested if anybody and everybody would just pile on and tell me their thoughts, concerns, etc..
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us