If you had to pick one of these amendments...

[A18]

To become part of the Constitution, which would you pick?

http://libertyamendment.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

[A18]

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world; this amendment doesn't change that. (Note that by apply, I mean apply, not make up).

[A18]

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world; this amendment doesn't change that. (Note that by apply, I mean apply, not make up).

It's in the same clause that says " general Welfare," so I don't understand how this amendment could not effect it.

Defense is a specified power. Spending money and farmers is not a specified power.

Really, this amendment should be almost useless, since Congress already has no constitutional authority to do most of this stuff, and if the Supreme Court won't interpret the original text honestly, they might as well ignore this text as well.

The exception is the income tax, which would force them to get out of a bunch of unconstitutional endeavors.

[A18]

There was no such thing as an Air Force at the time the Constitution was adopted. I guess I could respond to your comments, if not for the fact that I already did.

And, where else, but this very topic:

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world.

[A18]

I would prefer that stuck up gays stay out of my topic.

[A18]

Applying the old meaning to new information is not the same as modifying the meaning. It is applying it. The Constitution dictates a standard for affecting the enumerated powers, and that is that it be both necessary and proper.

Only a damned fool would argue that the power to provide and maintain a navy does not immediately imply the power to provide and maintain an Air Force in the modern world.

The so-called "elastic clause" (though I don't like that phrase - elastic would imply convenience rather than necessity) is there for a reason. A document can become over time so that the words of the document can become detached from the powers delegated in that Constitution.

Numerous writings by the founders clearly indicate this is exactly what the necessary and proper clause means.

[A18]

I apply the elastic clause when it's
  A. Necessary
  B. Proper

I assume proper would mean in keeping with the wishes of the founders in their delegation of powers to the Congress, though I don't have a source on that, and it could just mean that the Congress had to think it's proper, in which case it's pretty much a worthless requirement.

But the most important thing is necessary.

Give me an example of something where I do not apply the 'elastic clause' to the enumerated powers when it doesn't fit my ideology, but is in keeping with the clear sense of what the founders were trying to do, and necessary.

[A18]

It is necessary for realizing the foregoing powers.