 | Richard Labunski - 2006 - 352 σελίδες
...unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." And he asked, "why declare things shall not be done, which there is no power...when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"21 Mason did not have an opportunity at the convention to challenge this position, but if... | |
 | Elizabeth Price Foley - 2008 - 303 σελίδες
...granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"). 13. See id.; see also Speech of James Wilson before the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (Nov. 28,... | |
 | David E. Guinn - 2006 - 242 σελίδες
...of limited, expressly enumerated powers. As argued by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers: "[W]hy declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" (No. 84). However, whether out of legitimate concern over the possibility that the new Federal Government... | |
 | John J. DiIulio - 2007 - 328 σελίδες
...general political interests of the nation" to "every species of personal and private concerns. . . . Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty...power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? . . . [T]he Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a BILL OF... | |
 | Michael Warren - 2007 - 235 σελίδες
...dangerous." After all, the Constitution simply did not confer the power to infringe individual liberties, so "why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? . . . [I]t is evident that it would furnish to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming... | |
 | Garry Wills - 2007 - 646 σελίδες
...constitutional theory of the Framers."6 The framers said, as Hamilton put it in The Federalist No. 84: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" The limited powers of the federal government, they claimed, were such that it could not dream of imposing... | |
 | Jeremy D. Bailey - 2007 - 275 σελίδες
...colorable pretext" for officials to claim more powers than were originally given. If the people would "declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do," then a government might assume a power to do those things left unmentioned. Hamilton meant to convince... | |
 | James H. Hutson - 2007
...touch religion. "Why," Alexander Hamilton wrote in a characteristic rejoinder to the Antifederalists, "declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do." Bills of rights were dangerous because by singling out a few rights for protection, they might be interpreted... | |
 | Robert E. Wright - 2008 - 433 σελίδες
...rights to protect civil liberties. He argued that an explicit listing of rights might be dangerous. "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" he asked rhetorically. Logically he was right but politically he was wrong. A bill of rights would... | |
 | Gene Healy - 2008 - 386 σελίδες
...Bill of Rights.52 Since no power had been granted that could threaten private rights, Hamilton asked, "why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"53 "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America": enormous... | |
| |
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 
