Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (3763)	1/2/1999 4:11:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Article 1 section 8: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." All other powers vested by this Constitution in Government. That's about as vague and stretchable as you could stretch. It even says "vested by this Constitution in an Officer". I had forgotten that item. That means Congress can pass a law creating a king, if the people will accept it. That had Washington worried. My intent isn't refuted by what you've shown, rather, it's supported. Why do you think to the contrary? Can't you read? It was the intent of the founding fathers to provide unspecified powers because they knew it was impossible to codify to cover all possibilities. Franklin and Jefferson both knew this loophole, but they couldn't find a way around it without closing the system and thereby make it vulnerable to unanticipated change. So they took the lesser of two evils. They opened the system. This means exactly what I stated. It means the people have the right and guaranteed ability to destroy the government and the Constitution. This is an inalienable right. It is of the essence of why we fought the Revolutionary War. The Elastic Clause is not a clause because it is not a finite sentence. That clause never completes. It is open. Thus it is a pseudo-clause. As far as necessary and proper goes, how far do they go? It isn't and can't be specified. That means it may be necessary to dissolve the government because it has usurped its designated powers. Nixon came close to doing just that, so it isn't so abstract. If Congress spends more than it can steal by taxes, eventually the government will go bust and there will be no government. There may be chaos in the streets, but Congress has the right to exercise the provisions under the pseudo-clause and destroy itself. They almost did it under the Democrats' need to do good. When the indeterminate entity of Elastic Clause is actualized or reified, its abstract nature becomes tangible in the form of amendment. Every exercise of the Elastic Clause produces the amendment as output. A = A is a tautology. An exercising of the Elastic Clause such that the government is disbanded is neither tautological, nor is it absurd. What is enigmatic is that the Elastic Clause can be used in principle to destroy the Constitution or the Clause itself. That's what puzzled Franklin. He knew the Paradox of the Liar. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, your counter claim has failed.