I'm not saying the finding was a correct one, I was trying to explain to a foreigner how the finding was possible at all, okay? The finding of the court that the IC clause didn't cover this particular application was no doubt enormously stupid, since this is obviously the practice of a cartel, I was just trying to clarify the American system to someone who didn't appear to understand how it was even possible for such a conclusion to be justified.Patrick Degan wrote:
Which invalidates the original point how, exactly? You have not demonstrated just how the powers under the IC clause aren't "delegated", nor how they are prohibited —particularly in light of the clause empowering Congress "to make all necessary and proper laws for the execution of the foregoing powers". Your argument also ignores the fact that there are a specific set of forbidden powers enumerated in the Constitution, of which the powers you claim not to legitimately exist are decidedly not listed in that section of the document.
To reiterate: Congress is not restricted from exercising powers which aren't explicitly stated, only those which are expressly prohibited. That also is a legal truism in the United States.
Rearing for a fight, are you?