Safety and the Constitution

[redhawk41]

the 'theories' of Darwin and Freud have been used for several generations now to convince people that they are nothing more than animals. animals are not capable of controlling their animal instincts on their own.

goverment exists soley to protect us from our innate animal insticts, to keep us safe from our's and other's animal tendencies.

without government we would live like apes.

is this dependence on government learned behaviour? before Darwin and Freud humans were seperated from animals by the power of reason. the need for government regulation of the food i consume was unheard of and unnecessary because i trusted in myself and my power of reason.

now a century and a half later, i am nothing more than a filthy animal deep down, so i cannot trust in my own decisions and must look to government to protect me from myself.

[Marko Kloos]

That's a bit silly. It's like saying that scientists have been trying to convince people for 300 years now that they are subject to gravity just like rocks and apples.

Humans are biological creatures, just like every other living thing on earth, and have their own biological family, homo sapiens sapiens. That's a description of reality, not a value statement.

As to the whole animal instinct versus reason thing...I challenge you to find a single, solitary line in either Darwin's or Freud's works that state humans are not able to control their emotions and employ reason.

[tyme]

The US is (supposed to be) a limited federal government, limited to powers enumerated in the US Constitution. But the States have an entirely different form of government. The States are not limited to delegated powers. The States have broad and general powers such as police powers.

Hugh, the problem with this is that it does not admit any check on governmental power. Suppose Texas were not so strict in the powers it granted to government, and was more like the majority of the other states. Suppose it had no explicit recognition of people's right against government abuse of their property. What would you suggest if the people of Texas then elect reps and senators who pass a law allowing police to vandalize property of blacks/hispanics/jews, or property of jews, or allows the government to steal cars from people, or perhaps money? (Did you catch that? The intended irony here is that the government can already steal money from people, if they carry enough of it.)

If there is no way to claim that people have reserved rights apart from those identified explicitly in the constitution, what is left to do in those situations except grab a few guns and head for the hills?

Unless you think violence is necessary in that (hypothetical) situation... in which case perhaps we don't differ so much except on where the line is to be drawn.

[Heist]

For some reason, our society has become more animalistic and violent. Like the Roman Empire, the barbarians are at the gates, except instead of breaking in by force, they breed within us. It doesn't have any simple answer but a combination of factors from cultural changes, the media, schools, and essentially it's a side effect of turning our world into an attempt at mimicing communism.

Our intellectuals are driven by pre-existing beliefs. Our average people are below average. Our teachers are taught to be "change agents", our professors are even more radical and those who aren't are frequently punished for their beliefs even before they get their Phd. (My father was not granted his Phd because in his thesis he argued against Evolution.)

I believe that the whole concept of the good little wage slave in a fedora who goes to work and comes back to his house in the suburbs each day in a house that is exactly the same as the rest, who pays his taxes and votes x political party and sits on the PTA and lives a dull, controlled, identical life consisting of work and then retirement at 50 because 'it's what he's supposed to do' is every bit as repulsive as the Soviet system of communism, and brought into action by men just as powerhungry.

Our country tried to do that, or something like that, and they have largely succeeded. That has brought around unpleasant changes.

- The Bill of Rights never mentions the word "safety"; not once; nowhere.

- The Declaration of Independence mentions the word "safety" once....just once....and that in connection with the inalienable right of the People to reject oppression, for their own safety.

- The Constitution of the United States uses the word "safety" once....just once....and this in context of "invasion" or "rebellion".

In fact, it would appear that the founding concepts of this Nation stand in pretty stark contrast to this growing need for "safety":
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- These are each endeavors which, if pursued with passion, are inherently dangerous.

If giving up some rights makes us a little safer, then the necessary end of that logic is that giving up all our rights makes us totally safe.

Life is dangerous. Get over it.

The words "no", "not", and "nor" appear eighteen (18) times in the Bill of Rights. Each of these occurances references a restriction on government.

Sirs, I have never been on a forum before where I so completely agreed with the political thought and discussion. All I can say is, "why did I wait to come here so long?!"

[TheBluesMan]

Good to have you here, Heist.

-Dave

[redhawk41]

"...Civilisation overcomes the dangerous aggressivity of the individual by weakening him, disarming him and setting up an internal authority to watch over him, like a garrison in a conquered town."

Civilization and Its Discontents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civiliz...ts_Discontents

"It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct. "

"The tendency to aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man... it constitutes the powerful obstacle to culture."

"America is a mistake, a giant mistake."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...und_freud.html

"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...es_darwin.html

[Marko Kloos]

It seems to me that Darwin and Freud are on your side in the discussion...both of them make the claim that civilized behavior is based in reason, not emotion.

[Webleywielder]

What I am reading is is an arguement among a bunch of shepherdpeople about the degree that the wolfpeople are harrassing the flock. What I wish I was reading is how the shepherdpeople are going to organize to get the sheepeople to stampede in the right direction to trample the wolfpeople. How many contributors to this thread attend neighborhood meetings, home owner association meetings, city council meetings, county supervisor meetings, staffed a political party or ballot initiative committee, contacted their elected representatives, formulated a political action plan, served in public office, etcetera ? I have done almost all of these and have successfully contributed to positive change by participating in the system. The system of government we have for governing the United States is the worst on earth, accept for all the other systems. Stop writing and start walking and talking to lead the sheepeople. Getting your immediate neighbors active to improve the neighborhood is the best first step in that walk. Learn first how to function politically on a local level, the mistakes you will make are much less humiliating, and will let you know if you've got what it takes for the big leagues. I am sure some of you are politically active and I applaud you, but many of you are preaching to the choir and not the congregation.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".

[redhawk41]

so is it reason or emotion that leads the federal government to legislate "Seat belt laws, 'papers please' roadblocks, RealID, RFID, drug busts and the like"?

i would have to say, based on the media presentations we are given to justify such legislation (it's for the children), these laws are justified by the emotional responses of those who see the 'problem' presented on the nightly television news broadcast.

reason's got nothin' to do with it

[Handy]

If "safety" is not voiced as a right anywhere in our founding documents, it also becomes difficult to affirm a right to self protection, let alone state protection. It seems to me that neither concept is supported. The founding father's discussion of firearms mainly centers on their use to guard against the tyranny of government, not home invaders.

Alot of things necessary for a society to function are also not specifically verbalized - like environmental protection. So I guess I don't get Rich's point. The Constitution exists to frame the discussion of citizen's rights, not to be a catch-all. Law is used to delineate rights, and the Constitution tells us how to make those laws.

If the citizens of this country decide to make state supplied "safety" a right, then it is. A better point to be made is that no one has actually passed laws of that kind, despite many pretending they already exist.

[Rich Lucibella]

So I guess I don't get Rich's point.

But of course you do and you prove it in your very next sentence:

The Constitution exists to frame the discussion of citizen's rights

Words like "safety", "freedom" and "liberty" are discussion framing words in the context of Constitutional Congress. They were necessary to demonstrate intent and raison d'etre of the documents. Their presence or absence is therefore noteworthy.

Terms like "right to self protection", "environmental protection" are not framing terms in the context of the Constitution. First of all, they're operative not foundational; second, they don't exist in the Federal Constitution because the Feds were never intended to have a say in those matters.

Law is used to delineate rights, and the Constitution tells us how to make those laws.

Give the man a Cupie Doll. Exactly almost. The BoR required no further legislation, thank you.

If the citizens of this country decide to make state supplied "safety" a right, then it is. A better point to be made is that no one has actually passed laws of that kind, despite many pretending they already exist.

Sorry, I totally lost you on that. The state doesn't "supply" safety; the individual does. And no one here has "pretended" otherwise.
Rich

[Handy]

Rich,

I thought you said: "Just for kicks I decided to trace the concept that it's the government's job to keep us all safe from ourselves." That is the "concept" I'm referring to some people "pretending" exists.

And the state certainly COULD supply safety - it is just preferable that they aren't asked to try. Padded cells will certainly keep one "safe" from crime, suicide, cigarettes and UV rays.


I just don't see why this would be considered a Constitutional issue. Like I said, those documents don't refer to any sort of defense of person - by the state or individual.

You can't make the argument that something you are against is without merit just because it does not appear in the Constitution. Many of the things you (we) are in favor of are also not in the Constitution.

[Marko Kloos]

Like I said, those documents don't refer to any sort of defense of person - by the state or individual.

That's because the Constitution is a restriction on government, not you or me. It's merely a List Of Things The Government May Do. The Bill of Rights, as the addendum, is just a List Of Things The Government May Definitely Not Do. It's not a document telling Joe Citizen what he May Or May Not Do.

[Handy]

Exactly. That's why I'm confused about it being used in an argument against ubiquitous law enforcement.

[Rich Lucibella]

Handy:

- The Constitution delineates Federal powers.
- The Federal government has perverted the Constitution, pulling powers from the States and the People on the argument of "safety".
- The Constitution is fairly mute on the concept of "safety" but regularly references "freedom" and "liberty". Safety is not a valid reason for infringement; it's an excuse.

What's to understand?
I never put this forth as some breakthrough legal challenge to Federal powers. I simply stated that we all need to remember that "Safety" is not the root password to the Constitution; it's the root password to its destruction.
Rich

[Handy]

I had thought it was an argument, not a reminder. My mistake.


Arguments need to be strong at their core, or they risk weakening the cause they are supposed to support.

But I guess a reminder to the choir needs less solid ground.

[Hugh Damright]

What would you suggest if the people of Texas elect reps and senators who pass a law allowing police to [do awful things]

I think you are not talking about a check on government but a check on society/culture.

On the one hand, there is the 14th "Amendment", which would prohibit Texas from passing the specific discriminatory laws which you mention. But then, what many people want is to go beyond any specific limits on the States and simply say that no State can violate anyone's rights. I do not think that makes sense because what libertarians call "rights" are not political rights such as the Constitution is concerned with but rather facets of society/culture, and the Constitution is intended to leave it up to the people of each State to form their own society/culture.

[Rich Lucibella]

what libertarians call "rights" are not political rights such as the Constitution is concerned with

I disagree, Hugh. We are most especially speaking of enumerated Rights of the People. The right to be free in our "persons, houses, papers AND effects" from "unreasonable search and seizure" is pretty clear to me.

Some would argue, "Yes, but that doesn't apply to you when you're driving."
"Why not?"

"Because driving isn't a Right, it's a 'privilege' conferred on you by a benevolent State."

"Well, I might argue that making use of a highway I paid for is a Right, but let's not go there just now. How can the exercise of a 'privilege' negate an UNDERLYING RIGHT that TRANSCENDS even the CONSTITUTION?"

Answer, "It Can't".
You either believe that the Fourth Amendment follows you wherever you go or you believe that it's only valid at the times, places and in the activities .gov chooses.

Rich

ps: Neither can Any State's Law override the Federal BoR. It's subordinate TO them.

[tyme]

I agree that the rights depend entirely on culture, and that governments can theoretically take away anything that's not a right. We have a culture, and it's the culture of the founders, whether we like it or not. Allowing citizens to create their own culture and enforce it by constructing a government to enforce their culture is the same as majority rule. Majority rule, mob rule, pure democracy, anarchy... call it what you want. It is pure evil. If there are few citizens, and if they are wise enough or if they are sheep but have wise and benevolent sheepdogs, the democracy will have wonderful laws for a time. Then other people arrive, some of the wise leave, and you get people voting against scaaary guns and people voting themselves welfare.

You expect no one to violate the 14th amendment? The TX constitution violates it. The U.S. constitution says the RKBA shall not be infringed, and the TX constitution says it shall not be infringed, except if the legislature thinks it can prevent crime by infringing upon it.

The Government is the people. Every single member of state and federal legislatures were elected, and none more than 6 years ago. The only check we have is the constitution. The more liberally you read it, the closer you get to supporting mob rule.

[Al Norris]

I'm surprised that no one caught this from Hugh and commented upon it!

Hugh wrote:
The author believes that the 14th was not intended to apply the BOR to the States and that it is an unconstitutional assumption of power by the federal government. He says that this fundamental error is eroding federalism and that a reversal of the incorporation doctrine is necessary to return the 14th Amendment to its proper function.

Hugh, the author is absolutely incorrect. By its very definition, an amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

Now, as to its interpretation... That's the debatable point. But you also have to understand, that in interpretation, once the Supreme Court rules on the meaning, that's the meaning. At least, until a subsequent Court says otherwise. That's the principle behind Judicial Review, whether we like it or not. (and why the decision on Raich is so disturbing)

[Hugh Damright]

We are most especially speaking of enumerated Rights of the People. The right to be free in our "persons, houses, papers AND effects" from "unreasonable search and seizure" is pretty clear to me.

Please allow me to clarify what I mean when I say the Constitution regards political rights and not libertarian/individual rights.

A political right is a right of the people but it regards our form of government. If a people are going to have self-government or a "free State", then they must have a free press, armed people, a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. The BOR is not just a random list of libertarian/individual rights, it is an enumeration of requirements for free government i.e. it regards political rights.

On the other hand there are libertarian/individual rights, such as the right to wear a hat or the right to whistle dixie. I assume a libertarian would say that people have a right to wear hats or to whistle dixie, but these things have nothing to do with self-government.

I believe the 4th Amendment regards government persecuting people because of their political views by ransacking their houses and such. What you speak of, driving down the road and being pulled over or stopped at a roadblock, is not an attempt by the government to silence you and prevent free government. And your being pulled over in your State does not seem to impact my State. So I do not see how being pulled over is a federal/interstate/4th Amendment issue, I think it is an intrastate affair.

Allowing citizens to create their own culture and enforce it by constructing a government to enforce their culture is the same as majority rule. Majority rule, mob rule, pure democracy, anarchy... call it what you want. It is pure evil.

Republicanism is not evil, it is good. Of course Virginians do not have a popular vote on everything and have mob rule, but we elect representatives and delegate them the power to make decisions for us. And we have a Constitution which lays down certain principles of government, one of which is that "a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it [government], in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal". Virginia is a Commonwealth.

As Ronald Reagan said, "The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives".

And if the people of the States cannot define their own society/culture, what possible powers can be reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment?

Hugh, the author is absolutely incorrect. By its very definition, an amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

Now, as to its interpretation... That's the debatable point. But you also have to understand, that in interpretation, once the Supreme Court rules on the meaning, that's the meaning. At least, until a subsequent Court says otherwise. That's the principle behind Judicial Review, whether we like it or not. (and why the decision on Raich is so disturbing)

The 14th "Amendment" is not really an amendment because it failed every part of the amendment process and was forced upon us at gunpoint. If you sign a contract because there is a gun to your head, that is not a valid contract, it is a criminal act. Don't you agree?

The Constitution creates a limited federal government and the 14th attempts to transform that form of government, by force, into an all powerful national government. I agree with the author that that is an unconstitutional assumption of power.

As to its interpretation, it is evident to me that the 14th passed because they said it passed and it means whatever they say it means. Again, that is unconstitutional. A handful of people in robes can't just make it up as they go along, the Constitution means something definite and that is why it is written down.

... Actually, the book didn't address the 14th having failed the amendment process, but it said something to the effect that the 14th was only intended to address racial discrimination, and that it was unconstitutional to use the amendment for other purposes.

[tyme]

Republicanism, pure democracy... they're both pure evil unless constrained by a written constitution that must be obeyed. Personally, I think the requirements on passing amendments to the federal constitution are not strict enough, and requirements for modifying state constitutions are no where near strict enough. Though requirements for modifying state constitutions should be slightly less than the other.

Read again what you quoted; people can define their own culture(s); they cannot use the machinery of the state to force their culture on others insofar as it differs from the founding culture.

[Al Norris]

Hugh wrote:The 14th "Amendment" is not really an amendment because it failed every part of the amendment process and was forced upon us at gunpoint. If you sign a contract because there is a gun to your head, that is not a valid contract, it is a criminal act. Don't you agree?

Yes and no. Unless we want to take up arms and re-fight the civil war, there is no point to it. And while I often hear the sabers being rattled, I don't see anyone, and I mean any state, taking up the call to secede.

After more than a hundred years, it is a settled fact that the 14th is here to stay. To simply say it is not really an amendment, is to ignore reality.

I think the 16th was passed unconstitutionally. But it's here to stay.

I think the 17th was the worst mistake we made. But its here to stay.

So I stand by my statement. An amendment to the Constitution, by its very existence, cannot be unconstitutional. As long as the original (because that part has never been amended) Constitution gives all Judicial Power to the Supreme Court, then whatever the Court rules, is final and is constitutional.

I won't mince words here. We either accept things as they are, or we work to change things within the system. The only other alternative is to muster a call for arms and revolt. Is this what you are doing?

[Rich Lucibella]

I believe the 4th Amendment regards government persecuting people because of their political views by ransacking their houses and such. What you speak of, driving down the road and being pulled over or stopped at a roadblock, is not an attempt by the government to silence you and prevent free government. And your being pulled over in your State does not seem to impact my State. So I do not see how being pulled over is a federal/interstate/4th Amendment issue, I think it is an intrastate affair.

I believe you are dead wrong, Hugh. The 4th Amendment was never circumscribed to protect freedom of political views (that's covered under the First); nor is it limited to one's home.

The Fourth Amendment exists, in plain simple language, to limit SEARCH and SEIZURE by whim.....doesn't matter what ideology gives birth to the whim. Halting my peaceable journey, by force of arms without reasonable cause, is a SEIZURE....try it on a stranger in your neighborhood and see if you don't end up facing a serious criminal rap; asking for my Papers while you scan the objects in my car is a SEARCH.

As to the "home" part; the Fourth cannot be limited only to your "home", because "Home" is just one of the words used in the text, "person, houses, papers and effect". Your reading would indicate that it only applies to the papers you have on your person while in your home.

As evidence of this true meaning of the Fourth, we only have to look at history. 30 years ago the cops could not stop you on a roadway without reasonable cause, could not require that you produce "papers" absent reasonable cause, could not break down your door without a warrant and could not whimsically detain you in the street without facing the wrath of the Federal Courts.

Today, that is all changed....and the younger generation does not even have the benefit of memory of a different era. Reinterpreting the Fourth, intentionally or not, is nothing short of NewSpeak. The language and its historical interpretaion are readily decipherable.
Rich

[Long Path]

You need a devil's advocate, Rich?

Ah'll be yo' huckleberry.

Necessary and Proper clause. Chief Justice John Marshall used it in McCulloch v. Maryland thusly: (Hey, it's a long exerpt, but there's some important Constitutional theory from this 1819 case, which expanded the Commerce Clause, enforcement, and trounced state sovereignty.)

...But the argument on which most reliance is placed, is drawn from that peculiar language of this clause. Congress is not empowered by it to make all laws, which may have relation to the powers confered on the government, but such only as may be "necessary and proper" for carrying them into execution. The word "necessary" is considered as controlling the whole sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws for the execution of the granted powers, to such as are indispensable, and without which the power would be nugatory. That it excludes the choice of means, and leaves to congress, in each case, that only which is most direct and simple.

Is it true, that this is the sense in which the word "necessary" is always used? Does it always import an absolute physical necessity, so strong, that one thing to which another may be termed necessary, cannot exist without that other? We think it does not. If reference be had to its use, in the common affairs of the world, or in approved authors, we find that it frequently imports no more than that one thing is convenient, or useful, or essential to another. To employ the means necessary to an end, is generally understood as employing any means calculated to produce the end, and not as being confined to those single means, without which the end would be entirely unattainable. Such is the character of human language, that no word conveys to the mind, in all situations, one single definite idea; and nothing is more common than to use words in a figurative sense. Almost all compositions contain words, which, taken in their rigorous sense, would convey a meaning different from that which is obviously intended. It is essential to just construction, that many words which import something excessive, should be understood in a more mitigated sense--in that sense which common usage justifies. The word "necessary" is of this description. It has not a fixed character, peculiar to itself. It admits of all degrees of comparison; and is often connected with other words, which increase or diminish the impression the mind receives of the urgency it imports. A thing may be necessary, very necessary, absolutely or indispensably necessary. To no mind would the same idea be conveyed by these several phrases. The comment on the word is well illustrated by the passage cited at the bar, from the 10th section of the 1st article of the constitution. It is, we think, impossible to compare the sentence which prohibits a state from laying "imposts, or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws," with that which authorizes congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the powers of the general government, without feeling a conviction, that the convention understood itself to change materially the meaning of the word "necessary," by prefixing the word "absolutely." This word, then, like others, is used in various senses; and, in its construction, the subject, the context, the intention of the person using them, are all to be taken into view.

Let this be done in the case under consideration. The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, so far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confiding the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared, that the best means shall not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances. If we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it. The powers vested in congress may certainly be carried into execution, without prescribing an oath of office. The power to exact this security for the faithful performance of duty, is not given, nor is it indispensably necessary. The different departments may be established; taxes may be imposed and collected; armies and navies may be raised and maintained; and money may be borrowed, without requiring an oath of office. It might be argued, with as much plausibility as other incidental powers have been assailed, that the convention was not unmindful of this subject. The oath which might be exacted--that of fidelity to the constitution--is prescribed, and no other can be required. Yet, he would be charged with insanity, who should contend, that the legislature might not superadd, to the oath directed by the constitution, such other oath of office as its wisdom might suggest.

So, with respect to the whole penal code of the United States: whence arises the power to punish, in cases not prescribed by the constitution? All admit, that the government may, legitimately, punish any violation of its laws; and yet, this is not among the enumerated powers of congress. The right to enforce the observance of law, by punishing its infraction, might be denied, with the more plausibility, because it is expressly given in some cases. Congress is empowered "to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States," and "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations." The several powers of congress may exist, in a very imperfect state, to be sure, but they may exist and be carried into execution, although no punishment should be inflicted, in cases where the right to punish is not expressly given.

Take, for example, the power "to establish post-offices and post-roads." This power is executed, by the single act of making the establishment. But, from this has been inferred the power and duty of carrying the mail along the post-road, from one post-office to another. And from this implied power, has again been inferred the right to punish those who steal letters from the post-office, or rob the mail. It may be said, with some plausibility, that the right to carry the mail, and to punish those who rob it, is not indispensably necessary to the establishment of a post-office and post-road. This right is indeed essential to the beneficial exercise of the power, but not indispensably necessary to its existence. So, of the punishment of the crimes of stealing or falsifying a record or process of a court of the United States, or of perjury in such court. To punish these offences, is certainly conducive to the due administration of justice. But courts may exist, and may decide the causes brought before them, though such crimes escape punishment.

The baneful influence of this narrow construction on all the operations of the government, and the absolute impracticability of maintaining it, without rendering the government incompetent to its great objects, might be illustrated by numerous examples drawn from the constitution, and from our laws. The good sense of the public has pronounced, without hesitation, that the power of punishment appertains to sovereignty, and may be exercised, whenever the sovereign has a right to act, as incidental to his constitutional powers. It is a means for carrying into execution all sovereign powers, and may be used, although not indispensably necessary. It is a right incidental to the power, and conducive to its beneficial exercise.

If this limited construction of the word "necessary" must be abandoned, in order to punish, whence is derived the rule which would reinstate it, when the government would carry its powers into execution, by means not vindictive in their nature? If the word "necessary" means "needful," "requisite," "essential," "conducive to," in order to let in the power of punishment for the infraction of law; why is it not equally comprehensive, when required to authorize the use of means which facilitate the execution of the powers of government, without the infliction of punishment? . . . [i][continued]