The United States Constitution Was Ratified 225 Years Ago Today

1223L_OPED_LEGALIn honor of the occasion, MMM recommends that every Tea Party member and ‘Certified Constitutionalist’ familiarize themselves with the necessary and proper clause.

Posted: June 21st, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Tea Party, U.S. Constitution | Tags: | 10 Comments »

10 Comments on “The United States Constitution Was Ratified 225 Years Ago Today”

  1. Thomas Scarano said at 9:51 pm on June 21st, 2013:


  2. Art Gallagher said at 11:38 pm on June 21st, 2013:


    I heard many self described constitutional experts recently declare various laws and government functions unconstitutional.

    I’ve heard them cite various amendments to the Constitution.

    I haven’t heard any of them cite the necessary and proper clause.

  3. All I know is, said at 7:20 am on June 22nd, 2013:

    I bless the Founders for giving us that unique and precious roadmap to freedom, and I damn those who,on a daily basis,are purposefully and methodically destroying everything in it.

  4. Thomas Scarano said at 9:03 pm on June 22nd, 2013:

    Congress can make laws that are necessary and proper to carry out its constitutional functions. Seems consistent to me.

  5. And, they can also said at 11:23 am on June 23rd, 2013:

    make laws, and do every day now, that shred the very fabric of our republic and our individual freedoms, tax the workers to death and beyond, regulate us senseless, and micro-manage every aspect of our lives.. Add to that a dictator who, if they don’t do his bidding fast enough, simply invokes “executive privilege” and rams his socialism right down our necks even faster.. We are in big trouble, folks, time to wake up and demand better from every one of them, or we’re done..

  6. Joe Foster said at 12:56 pm on June 23rd, 2013:

    Art, does that mean that with the use of that clause, it is proper to negate the Constitution and its amendments when it is “deemed” necessary (or perhaps expedient)? It seems that you are supporting the use of that phrase for what end specifically (example please). It seems that for elected officials to discard or not follow those amendments just helps eliminate another cornerstone of the Constitution for what could be improper reasons.

    My question in this case relates directly to the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments specifically. I would appreciate it if you could cite an example or examples of the “necessary and proper” application relating to one of those 3 amendments. Perhaps it would help establish a context for your posting.

    That “wiggle room” language could be a very dangerous backdoor for negating any amendment or clause (just like our President does on a daily basis) should he not like nor agree with the Constitution. Is he exercising the use of that simplistic term arbitrarily or does he have to undergo some form of vetting. My guess is that if he doesn’t like something he will just sign another Executive Order (how many hundreds now has he already signed?).

  7. Art Gallagher said at 2:12 pm on June 23rd, 2013:


    I’m not implying anything. I’m simply asking self-proclaimed constitutional experts, i.e. anyone who says something is unconstitutional, to explore the necessary and proper clause.

    I have heard several people associated with Tea Party Groups, including people running for federal office, declare certain government institutions…social security, the federal reserve, and others, to be unconstitutional.

    I do not pretend to be an expert in constitutional law, so take my answer to your question for what its worth…a layman’s answer…

    An example of the federal law that limits the 1st amendment might be 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the law that criminalizes making false statement.

    The Federal Assault Weapons Ban arguably infringed on the 2nd amendment.

    CIPSA would seem to weaken the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court will eventually decide that, I suspect.

  8. And Obummer said at 8:34 pm on June 23rd, 2013:

    Has only taken 5 years to destroy it.


  9. Thomas Scarano said at 11:05 pm on June 23rd, 2013:

    The clause is for congress to make laws for the federal government within the bounds of its powers as dictated by the Constitution. Which is why liberals forget about the tenth amendment

  10. Joe said at 12:01 pm on June 24th, 2013:

    Talk to a conservative about Ninth Amendment rights and he will likely stare at you like a deer caught in the headlights.