Bio not provided
@Michael Boldin Thanks Michael. Yes, this is helpful. I shared this with my husband, who is also named, "Michael", ;-) and he commented on your statement regarding "bills rejecting military handouts of military hardware, or grants for drones...." was a "brilliant idea'! He hadn't considered that, and he is working on that right now. He also stated he understands why the federal government is arming themselves with bullets, tanks, and drones, is because the federal government still "fears us", which is a good thing. As long as they still fear us, they will back down. But it's the incidents where people are already dying, or being arrested or kidnapped by the government that still worries us. We still have much work to do. Thank you for your response and your help!
2 months, 1 week ago on Don’t Comply. Nullify!
Oh, and by the say my husband included your article above in an email to our Michigan State Legislature. :-)
Don't get we wrong, Michael, I personally agree with your article and "non-compliance". I applaud your efforts. And as I presented to you recently, my husband rewrote SB63 Firearms Freedom Act in Michigan and submitted to our Senator Jansen. My husband and I both work together in educating the public and work with our state and local representatives to educate them regarding Constitutional issues. But there is a "reality" you are not addressing here, that the federal government, through DHS, is militarizing the police forces. West Michigan, where I live, will soon be home to military drone training and operations. http://fox17online.com/2013/03/15/drone-operation-center-headed-to-west-mi/#axzz2NciuldXz Our county is slated to receive one of the 2700 armored tanks. Though half of the sheriffs of the 3100 counties in the U.S. are sticking to their "oaths" to the Constitution, the other half are happily accepting all of these gifts and toys from DHS, from our own tax money. Many of them are trigger-happy "sociopaths". In my area around Grand Rapids, MI, I have personally witnessed the swarms of SWAT teams, body armor, automatic weapons, snipers, blockades, etc, in usually quiet neighborhoods. They descend like a storm on rumors of domestic violence. In the neighborhood behind ours, a man and woman were having a fight. A neighbor called the police on a "rumor", that the husband may have a gun. Soon my whole area was turned into a war zone. It turned out later, there was no gun. The militarized police don't stop to ask questions. They are taught to move into action and follow orders. They often push the Sheriff aside.
Although, we believe, because of the Constitution, we don't have to comply with unconstitutional laws, the federal government doesn't. They will stop at nothing including admitting they can "drone your home" without due process. Take Waco and Ruby Ridge for examples, the federal government will "kill you", and sleep very well at night.McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, introduced House Bill 4455, which would put specific guidelines in place for the deployment of unmanned drones by law enforcement, as well as strong reporting requirements and penalties for the unauthorized use of data. But this is still not reassuring to me.The reality is, how are the states going to stop a military invasion of the federal government? And do they have "will" to do so? In other words, the federal government views "non-compliance" as an act of sedition and terrorism and believe they are within the law to arrest or eliminate you. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
@Michael Boldin The only way to fight the federal government is with the "teeth" of the 2nd Amendment to enforce whatever bill(s) the states decide. The federal government only understands one thing, force. So yes, we are beyond the courts now. Our state Sen. Jansen's office asked if our rewritten bill would be strong enough to get through the courts. My husband, said to Mike, his assistant, "No. But this shows you how you much you do not understand about the Commerce Clause and the federal government's abuse of it." As Judge Napolitano put it, if a majority of the states put their foot down then the federal government will have to back off, OR, start a war. The federal government doesn't care about the Constitution. They "take" power any way they get it. The people and states must push back or they, the fed, will continue in their tyranny.
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Idaho House Approves 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, 55-13 – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
This is why this bill, unfortunately, is weak against the federal government. At the end is video of Judge Napolitano stating the same things as our article. We rewrote the law and submitted to our representative and Senator: http://rebelliontotyrants.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/6/
Unfortunately, Rick Jones also believes toy guns are a problem should be regulated like real guns and confiscated from children. http://godfatherpolitics.com/3822/does-the-2nd-amendment-apply-to-toy-guns/comment-page-1/ So I don't trust him.
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Michigan Bills Would Nullify NDAA “Indefinite Detention” – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Arguments against the Michigan Firearms Freedom Act SB63, conclusion:
(Re. Wickard vs. Filburn) "It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market, and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices."
It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated, and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do.
SB63 contends it can circumvent the “interstate commerce clause” and Wickard v. Filburn more than suggests otherwise. SCOTUS maintains Congress has control over “intrastate commerce” if it effects “interstate commerce”. How many ways can the federal government construe effecting “interstate commerce”? I will remind you that raw materials are controlled by Congress, subject to regulation at the state level and as they cross state borders. Manufacturing for the purpose of “intrastate commerce” is not immune from the reach of the federal government. As you can see, what we understood going into the contact or statehood is no longer the case as Justice Jackson has stated. What Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson explained to us as regulation of commerce has been altered.
SB63 does not protect the private property of Michigan citizens. After a firearm has been purchased it becomes private property and “interstate commerce” ends. It is not a commodity or good involved in “interstate commerce” such as a block of aluminum intended to be machined into an AR15 lower receiver. The fact that private property crosses a state border doesn't appear to be “interstate commerce”. However, my knowledge of SCOTUS cases is extremely limited. What SB63 attempts to protect is “intrastate commerce” of federally licensed gun smiths and the wealthy who can afford to purchase expensive and custom made firearms. I'm not sure what purpose the stamp “Made in Michigan” serves.
There are three methods to combat the federal government. The first method is to renew the fight against Congressional expansion of power with the “interstate commerce clause”. We must return to first principles, the United States Constitution and The Federalist. This was the understanding we had at the time of statehood. The second method is called nullification. The Michigan Legislature must declare all unconstitutional acts of the federal government null and void having no force of law in the state of Michigan. The third method is to eject the federal government from the state of Michigan. If the federal government steps foot in Michigan they receive a nice comfy jail cell.
If none of these actions are acceptable then you must submit to the federal government.
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Arguments against Michigan's version of The Firearms Freedom Act SB63 continued:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. When we read the clause we understand the superintending authority to be Congress because it is an enumerated power. What we don't read is the intent of the framers with respect to regulating commerce between the states. (the 85 pamphlets were written to persuade for ratification of the Constitution) Left by it's self the clause could mean anything or nothing, right? When we examine the essays of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison we immediately understand what commerce between the states is, how goods are to move between the states and why we need regulation. I believe you will agree regulating commerce has nothing to do with manufacturing, farming or any other sort of activity. Commerce is the movement of commodities or goods from one point to another across or through state borders.
“Limited Power 3. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Under a broad socialist reading of “commerce” and what affects it, Congress claims it can regulate virtually any thing, and, as we will see in detail, it has done so. Jefferson argued that “regulate” simply means “to make regular”, that is to keep the states and others from interfering with the regular movement of good between merchants across interstate borders. As discussed later, Congress has hardly adhered to this view.” - The Constiution In Exile, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, page 13.
According to SB63 the people of Michigan had this understanding when it entered to the contract. Or did we? Have you proven we understood the contract? If the Michigan Legislature believes the people of Michigan understood the contract then they must also acknowledge the validity of The Federalist or Federalist Papers just as Justice Scalia has.
SB63 uses the ninth and tenth amendments, correctly, but Congress is the superintending authority over commerce between the states. SB63 uses “intrastate commerce” to circumvent the so called “interstate commerce clause”. Was that necessary? I submit the act was not necessary because “intrastate commerce” is beyond the preview of the federal government. Did Alexander Hamilton or James Madison address “intrastate commerce” with respect to regulating commerce between the states? I believe you will agree commerce between the states has been defined and the authority of Congress to regulate is still extremely limited with respect to commerce, right?
Why or how has the definition of “commerce between the states” become inclusive of every thing under the sun? Compare the arguments of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to what you see, with your own eyes, coming out of Washington D.C. over the last 100 years. Does it line up? What about “intrastate commerce”? Does Congress also control “intrastate commerce”?
For your amusement or horror see WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN., Decided Nov. 9, 1942. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=111 section on interstate commerce.continued.....
Arguments against Michigan's version of the Firearms Freedom Act SB63 continued:The Federalist No. 22, The Same Subject Continued (Other Defects of the Present Confederation) – Alexander Hamilton. “In addition to the defects already enumerated in the existing federal system, there are others of not less importance, which concur in rendering it altogether unfit for the administration of the affairs of the Union”.
“The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States. No nation acquainted with the nature of our political association would be unwise enough to enter into stipulations with the United States, by which they conceded privileges of any importance to them, while they were apprised that the engagements on the part of the Union might at any moment be violated by its members, and while they found from experience that they might enjoy every advantage they desired in our markets, without granting us any return but such as their momentary convenience might suggest. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Mr. Jenkinson, in ushering into the House of Commons a bill for regulating the temporary intercourse between the two countries, should preface its introduction by a declaration that similar provisions in former bills had been found to answer every purpose to the commerce of Great Britain, and that it would be prudent to persist in the plan until it should appear whether the American government was likely or not to acquire greater consistency”.
“Several States have endeavored, by separate prohibitions, restrictions, and exclusions, to influence the conduct of that kingdom in this particular, but the want of concert, arising from the want of a general authority and from clashing and dissimilar views in the State, has hitherto frustrated every experiment of the kind, and will continue to do so as long as the same obstacles to a uniformity of measures continue to exist”.
“The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy. "The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered are rendered almost useless." Though the genius of the people of this country might never permit this description to be strictly applicable to us, yet we may reasonably expect, from the gradual conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would at length come to be considered and treated by the others in no better light than that of foreigners and aliens”.
The Federalist No. 42, The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered – James Madison. “The powers included in the THIRD class are those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States”.
“Under this head might be included the particular restraints imposed on the authority of the States, and certain powers of the judicial department; but the former are reserved for a distinct class, and the latter will be particularly examined when we arrive at the structure and organization of the government. I shall confine myself to a cursory review of the remaining powers comprehended under this third description, to wit: to regulate commerce among the several States and the Indian tribes; to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin; to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the current coin and secureties of the United States; to fix the standard of weights and measures; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws of bankruptcy, to prescribe the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States; and to establish post offices and post roads”.
“The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain”.
“The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission”.
Argument against Michigan's Firearms Freedom Act SB63
The Federalist No. 7, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States) – Alexander Hamilton. “It is some times asked, with an air of seeming triumph, what inducements could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? It would be a full answer to this question to say--precisely the same inducements which have, at different times, deluged in blood all the nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, the question admits of a more particular answer. There are causes of differences within our immediate contemplation, of the tendency of which, even under the restraints of a federal constitution, we have had sufficient experience to enable us to form a judgment of what might be expected if those restraints were removed”.
“The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. We should be ready to denominate injurues those things which were in reality the justifiable acts of independant sovereignties consulting a distinct interest. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars”.
“The opportunities which some States would have of rendering others tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind. New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative”.
The Federalist No. 11, The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy – Alexander Hamilton. “The importance of the Union, in a commercial light, is one of those points about which there is least room to entertain a difference of opinion, and which has, in fact, commanded the most general assent of men who have any acquaintance with the subject. This applies as well to our intercourse with foreign countries as with each other”.
“An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished, and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. Commercial enterprise will have much greater scope, from the diversity in the productions of different States. When the staple of one fails from a bad harvest or unproductive crop, it can call to its aid the staple of another. The variety, not less than the value, of products for exportation contributes to the activity of foreign commerce. It can be conducted upon much better terms with a large number of materials of a given value than with a small number of materials of the same value; arising from the competitions of trade and from the fluctations of markets. Particular articles may be in great demand at certain periods, and unsalable at others; but if there be a variety of articles, it can scarcely happen that they should all be at one time in the latter predicament, and on this account the operations of the merchant would be less liable to any considerable obstruction or stagnation. The speculative trader will at once perceive the force of these observations, and will acknowledge that the aggregate balance of the commerce of the United States would bid fair to be much more favorable than that of the thirteen States without union or with partial unions.
“It may perhaps be replied to this, that whether the States are united or disunited, there would still be an intimate intercourse between them which would answer the same ends; this intercourse would be fettered, interrupted, and narrowed by a multiplicity of causes, which in the course of these papers have been amply detailed. A unity of commercial, as well as political, interests, can only result from a unity of government”.continued.....
Re: Michigan's version of the Firearms Freedom Act SB63
SB63 states, “Sec. 2. The legislature finds all of the following: (a) Amendment X of the constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Michigan certain powers as they were understood at the time that Michigan was admitted to statehood on January 26, 1837. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Michigan and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Michigan and the United States”.
What did the people of Michigan understand when it was admitted to statehood on January 26, 1837? Certainly the people of Michigan understood the Articles of Confederation had been replaced with the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787 and going into effect on March 4, 1789. Certainly the people of Michigan also understood the United States Constitution had been amended to include the Bill of Rights in 1791. If my math is correct Michigan became a state 46 years after the several states ratified the Bill of Rights.
It was clear the United States Constitution would not be ratified without a Bill of Rights. Since James Madison penned the Constitution, later became the 4th President of the United States, and was highly respected, it was agreed he would provide a Bill of Rights. That agreement allowed for ratification of the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Those essays explained operation of the new federal government, addressed arguments of the day against ratification and rights/powers of the people and states. What we now understand to be The Federalist or Federalist Papers are the original essays in a bound form. “Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says members of Congress need to get themselves a copy of the Federalist Papers – and make sure they read it.” - The Huffington Post, Henry C. Jackson, 01/24/11 The Federalist is admissible in SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).
Was The Federalist read and understood by the people of Michigan before seeking statehood in 1837? The Federalist had been in existence only 48 years, fresh in the minds of “we the people”.
“When Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States in 1831 (6 years before Michigan became a state), he observed how much the perpetuation of the American political system depended upon the training of the youths in the schools. He returned to France and wrote his famous two-volume work, Democracy in America, in which he said:”
“It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where the instruction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from the moral education.”
“He interviewed Americans at every level of society and wrote: If you question [an American] respecting his own country...he will inform you what his rights are and by what means he exercises them...You will find that he is familiar with the mechanism of the laws...The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation...The great work of society is ever going on before his eyes, and, as it were, under his hands. In the United States, politics are the end aim of education.”
“ De Tocqueville was particularly astonished by the knowledge that children possessed concerning the Constitution and how the American system operated. Many of the children were studying a little book of questions and answers called The Catechism on the Constitution. It was written by Arthur J. Stansbury and was published in 1828.” - The Making Of America, W. Cleon Skousen, page 245.
SB63 contends, “(c) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition”.
Placing the cart behind the horse, we need to understand what the “commerce clause” was intended to achieve. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." As my wife has already stated, “It was written to keep trade "regular" between the states in keeping them from charging undue tariffs on each other, or keeping them from obstructing the free flow of goods and raw materials through the states, or preventing the states from warring against each other over trade”.
@WilliamSchooler @KimberlyBoldt Madison especially set out to write the Constitution so that the even the common man could read and understand it. Because in his mind, what's the point of having laws if the people cannot read and understand them.In The Federalist No. 45, Madison specifically wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."The problem is their concepts were simple, and we today want to make things more complicated than they need to be. In fact, their ideas were so simple, we find it difficult to wrap our minds around these concepts.The federal government was formed for 3 main purposes: national defense, foreign relations, and trade and commerce. It serves no other purpose. Congress, the President, and Supreme Court are now stepping way beyond the boundaries of the Constitution today and they know it. We are not going to change their thinking until we change OUR thinking.
6 months ago on “Necessary and Proper” = “Necessaria et Opportuna”
Why is everyone focusing on the words "necessary and proper" when they should be focusing on the word FOREGOING which is before the word "Powers" in that phrase in Article 1, Sec. 8. What does "foregoing" mean? "Said, written, or encountered just before; previous: Refer to the foregoing figures." In other words only things related to the powers listed BEFORE or ABOVE this phrase. Congress only has the powers listed in Article 1, Sec. 8. Therefore, "necessary and proper" only refers to these powers---nothing more and nothing less. To interpret it any other way is a demonstration in an inability to read properly.The phrase reads as follows: "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."