First false statement the first was not a Constitutional Convention - The Founders called it the Philadelphia convention or the Grand Convention.
Read the links and there is more there than you can read in years and it is all History. Founders, Framers, Ratifiers papers, ebooks, video even Dr, Vieira's works, But the Constitution says what it means what it says - not some Lawyer or Judge or Scholar. It is in plain english just get a free dictionary of the time in the AV library and look up the words. Then you can determine what the FF&R said and meant.
Did I capitalize the reference to the first constitutional convention. Are thou really reaching so far for some significance to thy stance that thou are willing to make a reference to the convention from which our constitution originated as being a "false statement" to call it a constitutional convention? Really? I am afraid thou have shown thine true colors.
For those with ears, please read http://shermaninstitute.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ISSUE-BRIEF... Be informed and decide for yourselves.
Lawyers are trained in British Common law and Case Law Precedent which is fine for State Courts if their Constitution permits the use of same. However, there is Louisiana which used French law.
In Law school only one class on the Constitution is taught; they never argue the actual Constitution they collect case law Precedents to present as argument for consideration. This is exactly how and why the 14th Amendment has been Usurped by the Courts to control school admission rules, busing, apply the Bill of Rights to the States when the Courts own precedent "SETTLED LAW" in Barron V Baltimore clearly States that the BOI DOES NOT apply to the States.
So, read works of Lawyers but do not assume they are great Constitutional Scholars. Think about how the Supreme court works - most of the decisions are 6 to 4 or even 8 to 2. Now if they were just using the actual Constitution to determine if the Statute is permitted INSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS as a Stated power of Article I, II or III.
If they approached the Constitutionality from that direction would the decisions be 9 to 0 and the Statute is either allowed or not allowed. If not allowed it is null void and as if it never existed at all. Just because one argues the law from what many believe is persuasive and correct does not mean it is authorized inside the actual Constitution.
The meanings are the most common is first and then other meanings later . .
1. The act of coming together; a meeting of several persons or individuals.
CONVENTION, n. [L. See Convene.]
2. Union; coalition.
3. An assembly. In this sense, the word includes any formal meeting or collection of men for civil or ecclesiastical purposes; particularly an assembly of delegates or representatives for consultation on important concerns, civil, political or ecclesiastical. In Great Britain, convention is the name given to an extraordinary assembly of the estates of the realm, held without the kings writ; as the assembly which restored Charles II. to the throne, and that which declared the throne to be abdicated by James II. In the United States, this name is given to the assembly of representatives which forms a constitution of government, or political association; as the convention which formed the constitution of the United States in 1787.
4. An agreement or contract between two parties, as between the commanders of two armies; an agreement previous to a definitive treaty.
We also need the Act of 1871 to be struck and be rewritten. Washington D.C. should not be considered as a corporation. This has opened up a can of worms that has defined our country as a corporation.
The law allows banks and major corporations critical input on how the country is run.
Containing the actions of Congress will require this. There are to few delegates in Congress that actually work for the people.
What you describe would not be Constitutional - see Article I section 8 enumerated powers. This would not be one. Please expand your thinking here.
I do believe you are referring to the last paragraph of Article I, Section 9.
I interpret this paragraph as to allow Congress the ability to manage the instructions in the previous paragraphs.
The Law of 1871 is on the register as a Law. Any Law can be struck by Congress, if Congress feels that said Law will restrict or has been deemed unconstitutional.
Please read the Law of 1871 and then come back and tell us that it is within the scope of the Constitution.
let us look at AI section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for eachPerson.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Please point out what you are using a grant of power?
I will read the Law of 1871 but keep in mind that Congress can pass and the Executive can sing any law but none shall have the force and effect of law unless the power is GRANTED inside the Constitution. Statues do not override Constitutional limits.
I agree with you on that point.
Many of the Laws passed by Congress in the last 100 years would not stand in review. These Laws can only be be rescinded if challenged and reviewed by the Courts, or deemed and rescinded by Congress by majority vote.
I do apologize Section 9 should have read Section 8.
Then let me add this as the last paragraph and the first paragraph are LIMITED and directed at only such Powers in regards to effecting the Limits of the Article I section 8 enumerated powers. They understood that the limits were the limits and the clauses could not be used to expand or create new powers not enumerated.
Now that being said The Courts Usurped power not given in Article III to give new meaning of the clauses. I will post what Jefferson said about such overreach. [The subject of the Supreme court usurping is in these two locations.
Read Number three in the above scroll down.
Richard you are not the first to confuse the power of the Necessary and Proper clause or the General welfare clause.
The Supreme court used a British Case Law precedent trick to bring the Necessary clause to a Point in Law position. To do that they had to dig out a old Hamilton paper on Manufacturing that was only mentioned as Dicta in a case [not a part of the case in review] to create the power of "NECESSARY AND PROPER" clause.
The power has no legal FOUNDATION in the Constitution and therefore is MOOT. Most of the Supreme court powers are usurped and not granted in Article III = Therefore they are legally null void as if they never existed at all.
All of the Founders said all powers not granted in the Constitution are usurped and have no legal basis. No foundation will get your premise kicked out of the first year of any law school.