Means, Powers, and Goals

I would like to address what I view as a central deficiency in the modern interpretation of the constitution. I believe that the grant of specific powers and authority to the Federal government is a grant of means which the government may use to pursue it goals. What those goals maybe is not to me important in determining if the government has exceeded the bounds of its authority. I believe that this is very different from the mainstream legal interpretation which I believe to be as follows: the enumerated powers represent a the establishment of legitimate zones of government interest. This is a very significant difference as it makes the test of government overreach whether the goal of the government was legitimate or not instead of if the means it used were. If the constitution had not included a facilitative grant of power this would not be an issue. But under the goal based test the necessary and proper clause becomes an unlimited grant of power as long as the goal is in line with the expressed powers granted to the government. I believe the necessary and proper clause was and should serve the important but limited purpose of giving congress the power it implement and enforce those powers which they have been given. For example the authority to employ customs agents is not granted to congress but without that power they would not be able to implement the power granted to them to regulate commerce. I believe the test of whether a power is allowed via the necessary and proper clause is thus: if it allows or facilitates the implantation of a power expressly granted to the government and does not interfere with any right expressed or unexpressed held by the States or the people then it can be considered necessary and proper.

This would mean that the Federal government would in many cases be justly able to attempt to accomplish certain goal but not be assured of success if the means necessary to that success are not within the means granted to it. Currently any means needed to succeed at goals viewed as legitimate are granted to the government as a matter of legal doctrine. This justifies almost all exceptions to the plain meaning of the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens. I hold that it is acceptable to allow the government to attempt to achieve the goals it may wish and to hold it to only those means actually granted to it in that attempt.

If necessary the Constitution has provided the government with a mechanism to grant it self any additional means it feels necessary. That mechanism is a Constitutional amendment. If such a provision was nonexistent the rational behind the end granting the authority to preform the means might be sound and necessary. But with such a provision such an assertion merely boils down to the contention that since it is hard comply with the requirements of the Constitution we should allow the government to act beyond them.

While it may be temping to allow the government the means it believes it needs to accomplish it good and legitimate goals, it is a delusion to believe that any grant of power no matter how all encompassing can guarantee success in the government's endeavors. Viewed in the abstract it is easy to imagine great disruption and chaos resulting from strict limits on governmental power but in practice if a means should become necessary it will usually gain wide spread support allowing the easy acquisition of the needed power through the means provided in the Constitution. It is only when a minority wished to act against the majority or the government wished to act against the people that the grant of power to the government on the sly is required. As both of these instances are abhorrent to our free society and republican government I see only good in forcing the government to expand its power, if such should be necessary, through legitimate Constitutional means.