I am being genuine and sincere in my reply so please do not take it as some type of sarcastic reply.
I will use the Louisiana Purchase as my example. It can be argued, with great credit, that it was unconstitutional. Madison and Jefferson, as noble as they were, weaseled their way into buying it anyway. While arguably the implied power was the purchase, the authority of the government to own and administer land is soundly an implied power.
Bundy's land, however, was not bought, it was ceded by the Mexicans. It would be silly and impractical to think (IMO) that since it is not enumerated, the government cannot accept land ceded to it as conditions of surrender under a proper war. Thus, as the .gov is not prevented from expansion resulting from war, it must be implied. Further implied, as "necessary and proper", is the ability for congress to administer the lands. If the government could not own or administer land, we would have lost all the territory won during the revolutionary war since it was not provided for in the constitution the ability for the .gov to own and administer it. Selling the western territory was the biggest source of income for the continental congress.
I will not argue the bait and switch land swap was awfully shady, but I think it's (unfortunately) passes muster.
I never supported any packing of the supreme court in any shape of form. I felt dragging FDR into the conversation served no purpose. I'm not a statist, just because something is wrong or I don't like it, does not make it illegal. I will argue for what is right till im blue in the face, even if I don't agree with it. Just because im here making this argument, does not mean I like it or agree with it on principle.
