Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?


Yes.



A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?

Your question is more complicated than you think. It can't be answered with a
simple yes or no. The answer is sometimes Yes, sometimes No, and sometimes Yes
but ...

The role of all courts, including the SCT, is simply to decide cases other
parties bring to the courts for resolution. In deciding those cases, the courts
have to make rulings on what the law is. Technically, those rulings are binding
only on the parties to that case. But to avoid inconsistent judgments, the
courts follow a principle that, once an issue has been decided a certain way,
the courts on future cases will decide the same issue the same way. Lower
courts are obligated to follow the decisions of higher courts, which can
overrule themselves but are reluctant to do so for many reasons.

Courts can't simply come out and say something is or is not constitutional.
When they rule on such things, it is always in the context of a case someone has
brought before them. What the issue is, and who the parties are, and the
particular facts of a case, can make the answer to your question very complicated.