are the proper means of executing such a power, but necessary and proper laws? In truth, the constitutional operation of the government would be precisely the same, if the clause were obliterated, as if it were repeated in every article.[1] It would otherwise result, that the power could never be exercised; that is, the end would be required, and yet no means allowed. This would be a perfect absurdity. It would be to create powers, and compel them to remain for ever in a torpid, dormant, and paralytic state. It cannot, therefore, be denied, that the powers, given by the constitution, imply the ordinary means of execution;[2] for without the substance of the power the constitution would be a dead letter. Those, who object to the article, must therefore object to the form, or the language of the provision. Let us see, if any better could be devised.[3]
§ 1233. There are four possible methods, which the convention might have adopted on this subject. First, they might have copied the second article of the confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not expressly delegated. If they had done so, the constitution would have been construed with so much rigour, as to disarm it of all real authority; or with so much latitude, as altogether to destroy the force of the restriction. It is obvious, that no important power delegated by the confederation was, or indeed could be executed by congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of construction or implica-- ↑ The Federalist, No. 33; 2 Elliot's Debates, 196; Hamilton on Bank, 1 Hamilton's Works, 121; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton's R. 419.
- ↑ M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. R. 409; 4 Elliot's Debates, 217, 218, 220, 221.
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 44. See also President Monroe's Exposition and Message, 4th of May, 1822, p. 47; 3 Elliot's Deb. 318.
