The Principles of the Constitution

In the ongoing project of touting his new book, Steven Hayward has some great thoughts on the lack of sustained and intellectual talk about the Constitution.  As Steve argues, in order to truly understand the principles of the Constitution, you have to do better than simply make some vague references to the enumerated powers in Article I.  Ron Paul in particular gives one pause to wonder whether he would find the Air Force to be constitutional, which is not specifically listed among the powers in Article I (I am sure he would but it would certainly betray his strict, literal constitutional interpretation that anything not listed is therefore unconstitutional). 

But all of this would not rebut the common liberal argument for unlimited government:  reliance on the Necessary and Proper Clause.  Here is more:

No doubt a liberal will find any use of government power to be within the necessary and proper clause, and many courts will rightly not wish to interfere with the determination of the legislative branch on its interpretation of both its enumerated powers and their extension through the necessary and proper clause.  This may include, unfortunately, Obamacare, which is why I have thought it a minor mistake to rest the case against it on the narrow grounds of whether the individual mandate violates just the Commerce Clause. This seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

Here is Steve citing Chief Justice John Marshall from his opinion in Marbury v. Madison for proper guidance on how to view the Necessary and Proper Clause:

Even without the aid of the general clause in the constitution, empowering congress to pass all necessary and proper laws for carrying its powers into execution, the grant of powers itself necessarily implies the grant of all usual and suitable means for the execution of the powers granted. Congress may declare war; it may consequently carry on war, by armies and navies, and other suitable means and methods of warfare. So, it has power to raise a revenue, and to apply it in the support of the government, and defence of the country; it may, of course, use all proper and suitable means, not specially prohibited, in the raising and disbursement of the revenue. And if, in the progress of society and the arts, new means arise, either of carrying on war, or of raising revenue, these new means doubtless would be properly considered as within the grant. Steam-frigates, for example, were not in the minds of those who framed the constitution, as among the means of naval warfare; but no one doubts the power of congress to use them, as means to an authorized end.   

This is all the more important when arguing against the wrongs inflicted by Obamacare, because, as Steve rightly maintains (and is in agreement with Hadley Arkes), focusing on the Commerce Clause misses the forest for the trees.

Reliance on the principles of the Constitution, e.i., separation of the powers, federalism, and the Founders' natural rights philosophy, would make a much stronger case than the current popular arguments.