Immigration and the US Constitution

[Forty Two]

Yeah, when I hear people say the Constitution calls for a small federal government, I think of the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. Then I consider that the taxing power has no limit, and just can't see that being true. I remember exploring Federalist 34 with Seth, and Hamilton's riff on the "capacity to provide for future contingencies," and it seems the Constitution has some slack for government growth.

I wonder what Hamilton would think if he could see our federal government now.

Hamilton was in favor of a very strong central government. Alexander Hamilton actively opposed the adoption of the "Bill of Rights" which were intended as limitations on federal government power. The Bill of Rights was a concession by Hamilton's Federalists to Jefferson and Mason's antifederalists.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84 that the "ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Indeed, Alex, why, indeed would we want to declare something out of bounds of Congress when there is no power delegated to the federal government to do it? What about immigration? No power is delegated to the federal government to do it, yet, the power was taken by the federal government, and the SCOTUS upheld it as "inherent" (such that it did not need to be delegated to the federal government by the Constitution).

[Joe]

Yeah, when I hear people say the Constitution calls for a small federal government, I think of the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. Then I consider that the taxing power has no limit, and just can't see that being true. I remember exploring Federalist 34 with Seth, and Hamilton's riff on the "capacity to provide for future contingencies," and it seems the Constitution has some slack for government growth.

I wonder what Hamilton would think if he could see our federal government now.

Hamilton was in favor of a very strong central government. Alexander Hamilton actively opposed the adoption of the "Bill of Rights" which were intended as limitations on federal government power. The Bill of Rights was a concession by Hamilton's Federalists to Jefferson and Mason's antifederalists.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84 that the "ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Indeed, Alex, why, indeed would we want to declare something out of bounds of Congress when there is no power delegated to the federal government to do it? What about immigration? No power is delegated to the federal government to do it, yet, the power was taken by the federal government, and the SCOTUS upheld it as "inherent" (such that it did not need to be delegated to the federal government by the Constitution).

Yeah, Hamilton was the strong government guy, and used Great Britain as his model in Federalist 34. The thing is that the modern federal government is much larger than that. It would be something to see his reaction to the actuality of what he theorized.

As for the court's end run on the 10th, I'd recommend reading their decisions to see how they justified it, and understand how the legal theory evolved. The article Strontium Dog provided is a good guide.

[Forty Two]

I've read them, thanks.