Hacker News Reader

IANAL, but the fact that it says nothing about an obligation (I don't even believe it's implied, but I'm not a historical legal scholar) leads me to believe you're inserting your own bias.

View on HN

One thought would be, if there was no duty implied in the specific enumeration of this power and it's implied goal, then why wouldn't it just be part of the necessary and proper clause?

I think a much more obvious question is why wouldn't they just write down what they meant instead of obfuscating their intentions?

You are literally looking for something that isn't there, because it is not written down.

I would love for a lawyer to chime in, because admittedly this is not my wheelhouse.

If you think that you probably shouldn't deal with a lot of statutes. For what it's worth, despite your contentions, I don't at all believe it is confusing. But I'm a litigator and I went to law school.

If you think the necessary and proper clause can be read to authorize patents, you probably have a very different idea of how to interpret the constitution than the drafters of the constitution.

That's not what I wrote!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com