"Fair Share"?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Then STFU and move on, I didn't ask for your comment(s).

Though it sounds to me like you do not have a decent answer for taxing lotto winnings just like you tax inheritance. No different. Just like winning in Vegas, all that money had been taxed, yet you have to pay tax on the winnings, that is what a inheritance is, a winning lotto number.

You are the most mentally disturbed poster on this board. You have proven it time and again, here and elsewhere. You really should get checked. Your postings can start out rational, but can quickly get deranged when confronted. Again, we have seen that both here and elsewhere.

No worries, I'll try not to comment when you're around. Besides, you'll report me to the mods if I do. Did I expose any secrets this time? You know how many points I've received in nearly 15K posts? None. Zip. Zero. Nada. But keep trying.

Now rant and rave. No one cares. We know what you are.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by WTF

Is an inheritance a '''means to attain success''? How about we tax the shit out of one's death. Is that fair?

Does an inheritance infer Self Reliance?

To be honest... "fairness" has never been my benefactor.
The way things are headed... when the state has become so immoral... I'm not sure that Anarchy... every man for themselves, isn't the "fairest" doctrine!! Are we not half way there, as is?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

Does an inheritance infer Self Reliance?

No it does not...but we both knew that, it is my Tea puke friends that have trouble with that concept.

Originally Posted by MrGiz

To be honest... "fairness" has never been my benefactor.
The way things are headed... when the state has become so immoral... I'm not sure that Anarchy... every man for themselves, isn't the "fairest" doctrine!! Are we not half way there, as is?

Adam Smith would be proud!

btw, When hasn't the state been immoral? If you were a black person or a woman , the state was immoral many moons ago. Immoral is very subjective Mr Giz, just as fairness is.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We know what you are.

Do you now...

Like I said, you do not have a decent answer for the subject matter at hand.

Originally Posted by WTF

Though it sounds to me like you do not have a decent answer for taxing lotto winnings just like you tax inheritance. No different. Just like winning in Vegas, all that money had been taxed, yet you have to pay tax on the winnings, that is what a inheritance is, a winning lotto number.

.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The guy is dead. He doesn't have wealth any more. Or a pulse.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

All that is left is property. And that property is now income to somebody else - his heirs.

And your argument - that his estate should not be taxed because it has already been taxed is wrong on 2 levels. First, if you take it to its logical conclusion, then even a 1% tax is impermissible - because the money has already been taxed, right? It can't be wrong at 60%, but right at 5%. If the tax is impermissible, it is impermissible at both 60% and 0.1%. If the tax is permissible, then we are only arguing over the rate.

Second, money gets taxed twice all the time. It just has to change hands. The $100 in your wallet has already been taxed by the IRS. But if you buy something in the store, the store owner pays income tax on the $100 again. You don't get to decide where that money goes just because you earned it.

The estate tax is really a misnomer - or is at least not properly understood.

It is an income tax on other folks, the beneficiaries. And they did NOT work or invest to earn it. So why not tax it at 60%?

The alternative is me being taxed at a higher rate while I am living and working. I'd rather raise the estate tax than increase the marginal rates.

The time to provide for your family is while you are living, not after you are dead.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by WTF

. . . Immoral is very subjective Mr Giz, just as fairness is. . . .

Agreed.... which makes preaching from a social pulpit appear to be so silly.... and often, asinine!

[Jackie S]

I plan on writing my last check to the undertaker, and I hope it bounces.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I plan on writing my last check to the undertaker, and I hope it bounces.

Excellent plan!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, it is an option.

The Preamble is nice flowery language, but it is not enforceable. It does not mandate anything.

But, I'll tell you what, let's hear your solution to what happens if they don't provide for the common defence. Let's assume a bunch of Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders types win a large majority in Congress. What happens if the bleading-heart pacifist Congress cuts DoD spending to nothing or almost nothing?

What is your solution? Who do you turn to force them to perform that "mandated" spending?

Walk us down that path of insanity.

This nation was born in war and crawled bloody from the cradle to struggle in its revolt against Great Britain’s suzerainty. The phrase, “to provide for the common Defence,” is not mere “flowery words” as you claim. The Preamble states the purpose for the Constitution and the government it establishes. Hence, it is not an “option” to dismiss the stated “purposes” and “functions” of government without simultaneously dismissing the government’s relevancy and authority. Further, Article I, Section 8, establishes that Congress has no arbitrary power to tax but only that Congress has the power to tax in order to “provide for the common Defence,” etc. Your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common Defence” is completely erroneous as it is absurd. Such an act by Congress would negate its authority and power to tax; thus, it would be an act towards disestablishment of the government because, at that point, the government would cease to serve the most basic of its citizens’ needs. That notion of such disestablishment – revolution – was pre-echoed by philosophes such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau in their “social contract” theories which Jefferson, Madison and company read and incorporated in two of this nation’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.

To answer your question regarding government spending: Odumbo, et al, can stop creating new social service programs and quit expanding ones that already are on the books. That would be a start! WTF’s and Doofus’ notion that it is only defense spending that is causing this nation’s fiscal problems is absurd. Odumbo’s proposed budgets exemplify his ridiculous and continued contempt for fiscal responsibility.

Further, LexusLover pointed out in this thread, or perhaps another, much of the high costs associated with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq stem from the use of civilian contract labor. Civilian contractors are employed for mundane logistical tasks such as food service, sanitation and security. From my own observation, these men and women are paid five or six times what their counterparts in uniform would receive. One could achieve enormous savings by returning to the draft and filling those positions with draftees. The draft would also serve to lower the need for using financial incentives to attract men and women to enlist in the service.

On a side note, it’s been one of my concerns that these civilian contractors are not protected by the tenets of the Geneva Convention. Technically, they are considered “irregulars” and subject to execution as such if they are captured, and that happened during WWII: e.g., that’s why the “Seabees” were created thus putting civilian construction engineers in uniform so they’d be protected by the Geneva Convention if captured.

But here’s the “Catch 22”: one enormous benefit rising from using civilian contractors is that the government ceases to be responsible for “civilian contractors” (no VA benefits) once their contracts are cancelled. Excellent concept, if you can choose to ignore the fact that most of those “civilian contractors” are prior service and already due VA benefits.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This nation was born in war and crawled bloody from the cradle to struggle in its revolt against Great Britain’s suzerainty.

Is this some kind of creative writing contest? Where did you copy that from? There are no extra points for 25 cent words and lofty rhetoric that merely disguises that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to "mandated" spending.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The phrase, “to provide for the common Defence,” is not mere “flowery words” as you claim. The Preamble states the purpose for the Constitution and the government it establishes. Hence, it is not an “option” to dismiss the stated “purposes” and “functions” of government without simultaneously dismissing the government’s relevancy and authority.

Where do you get that idea? Can you cited an authority for that? Or is this just IPHankerwrong making it up as he goes along?

The Preamble does nothing more than state why "the People" are ordaining and establishing the Constitution. It does NOT mandate or proscribe anything. To the extent something is mandated or proscribed by the Constitution, it comes AFTER the Preamble, starting in Article I.

The bizarre irony here is that YOU, an alleged conservative, are espousing a LEFTWING tactic. In the past, the left has tried on more than one occasion to create some government program or pass some law and claimed that Congress had the power to do so because the law or program "promoted the general welfare" as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.

And every time they have tried it, the Supreme Court has shot them down while affirmatively stating that the Preamble does NOT enumerate any powers. Which is why lawyers never argue cases by saying "But your honor, according to the Preamble..."

If you would like to dispute this, please cite a Supreme Court case in which a ruling was based on the Preamble. Good luck.

So, no, Congress does not lose its relevance and authority if it doesn't provide for the common defense.

Also, how exactly do you decide that Congress has not provided for the common defense or the general welfare? Is there some dollar amount they cannot go below?

Those are questions that are supposed to be decided by Congress, which is an elected body. That is their JOB. If Congress says $1 is enough to provide for common defense of for the general welfare, who gets to overrule them? The Supreme Court? The President? What if they defer to Congress? What then?

Congress might get voted out of office in the next election. But that is not the same as saying that they MUST spend something on the DoD.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Further, Article I, Section 8, establishes that Congress has no arbitrary power to tax but only that Congress has the power to tax in order to “provide for the common Defence,” etc. Your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common Defence” is completely erroneous as it is absurd.

Article I, Section 8, does no such thing. You are confusing the POWER to do something with the OBLIGATION to do something. They are NOT the same.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1 states:

"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

You fundamentally do not understand the purpose of the Constitution and how it is interpreted by courts. The federal government is a government of enumerated powers. The federal government does not have general powers - the states have that.

The federal government only has those powers that are spelled out in the Constitution. When Congress wants to pass a law, it must be able to point to where in the Constitution it gets that power.So, when Congress wants to create a new tax, it can point to Article I, Section 8, clause 1 and say "That is where we get the power to do it."

More importantly, it can point to the 16h Amendment "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

I don't know how in the world an alleged conservative like you could have missed the Income Tax amendment. You will also not that the 16th amendment does not say anything about either the common defense or the general welfare. They can tax for ANY FUCKING REASON THEY WANT. And the 16th amendment comes later in time, so it supercedes anything that Article I, Section 8 may say to the contrary.

EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, Article I, Section 8, only talks about a power to TAX, it says NOTHING about spending.

The DoD is a spending issue, not a taxing issue and Congress has plenary power to SPEND any way it wants to. This is a lesson that conservatives are supposed to be painfully aware of. Congress controls the purse strings - like it or not.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Is this some kind of creative writing contest? Where did you copy that from? Fuck you and your pretentious ignorance, ExNYer! It’s a fact, and it wasn’t “copied”! There are no extra points for 25 cent words and lofty rhetoric that merely disguises that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to "mandated" spending. It’s you, ExNYer, who willfully and ignorantly refuses to acknowledge that the Constitution is a legal document – the supreme statute – and that therein there is no mere “flowery language” that doesn’t carry the weight of law.

Where do you get that idea? Can you cited an authority for that? Or is this just IPHankerwrong making it up as he goes along? You’re the only one who is making shit up as you go along, ExNYer. The Preamble states the purpose – the justification for – the Constitution and the government it created. The verbiage in Article I, Section 8 reiterates that purpose and checks the power of Congress to do otherwise. It’s you who chooses to willfully and ignorantly ignore it and pretend it doesn’t say what it says.

The Preamble does nothing more than state why "the People" are ordaining and establishing the Constitution. It does NOT mandate or proscribe anything. To the extent something is mandated or proscribed by the Constitution, it comes AFTER the Preamble, starting in Article I. The Constitution is a legal document which embraces no “flowery language” which doesn’t carry the weight of law. The Constitutional scholar is Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who, no doubt, is another in a long list of Constitutional scholars of whom you remain woefully ignorant, ExNYer.

The Preamble mandates the purpose of the Constitution as a statute—the supreme law of the land:
“§ 459. The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute.” Justice Joseph Story.

The bizarre irony here is that YOU, an alleged conservative, are espousing a LEFTWING tactic. In the past, the left has tried on more than one occasion to create some government program or pass some law and claimed that Congress had the power to do so because the law or program "promoted the general welfare" as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. The verbiage “provide for the common defence” in the Preamble is repeated verbatim in Article I, Section 8. Your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence” remains completely erroneous. “§ 462 . . . suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one would promote, and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation to be adopted? Are we at liberty, upon any principles of reason, or common sense, to adopt a restrictive meaning, which will defeat an avowed object of the constitution, when another equally natural and more appropriate to the object is before us? Would not this be to destroy an instrument by a measure of its words, which that instrument itself repudiates?” Justice Story. As per Story, your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence” remains completely erroneous as it is absurd.

And every time they have tried it, the Supreme Court has shot them down while affirmatively stating that the Preamble does NOT enumerate any powers. Which is why lawyers never argue cases by saying "But your honor, according to the Preamble..."

If you would like to dispute this, please cite a Supreme Court case in which a ruling was based on the Preamble. Good luck. The verbiage “provide for the common defence” in the Preamble is repeated verbatim in Article I, Section 8, and that is sufficient to refute your ignorant argument, ExNYer.

So, no, Congress does not lose its relevance and authority if it doesn't provide for the common defense. Justice Story repudiates your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence”.

Also, how exactly do you decide that Congress has not provided for the common defense or the general welfare? Is there some dollar amount they cannot go below? Justice Story repudiates your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence”.

Those are questions that are supposed to be decided by Congress, which is an elected body. That is their JOB. If Congress says $1 is enough to provide for common defense of for the general welfare, who gets to overrule them? The Supreme Court? The President? What if they defer to Congress? What then? Justice Story repudiates your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence”.

Congress might get voted out of office in the next election. But that is not the same as saying that they MUST spend something on the DoD. Justice Story repudiates your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence”.

Article I, Section 8, does no such thing. You are confusing the POWER to do something with the OBLIGATION to do something. They are NOT the same.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1 states:

"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Note the added emphasis, ExNYer, there are no “should’s” or “maybe’s” in the verbiage – Article I, Section 8 emphatically states Congress’s power to tax exists because it has to “provide for the common defence”, etc.

You fundamentally do not understand the purpose of the Constitution and how it is interpreted by courts. The federal government is a government of enumerated powers. Note the added emphasis, ExNYer, there are no “should’s” or “maybe’s” in the verbiage – Article I, Section 8 emphatically states Congress’s power to tax exists because it has to “provide for the common defence”, etc.

The federal government does not have general powers - the states have that. The federal government only has those powers that are spelled out in the Constitution. When Congress wants to pass a law, it must be able to point to where in the Constitution it gets that power.So, when Congress wants to create a new tax, it can point to Article I, Section 8, clause 1 and say "That is where we get the power to do it." It’s you who willfully and ignorantly refuses to acknowledge that the Constitution is a legal document and that therein there is no “flowery language” that doesn’t carry the weight of law. Your notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence” remains completely erroneous as it is absurd.

More importantly, it can point to the 16h Amendment "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Was the verbiage in the Preamble or Article I, Section 8 changed? No!

I don't know how in the world an alleged conservative like you could have missed the Income Tax amendment. You will also not that the 16th amendment does not say anything about either the common defense or the general welfare. They can tax for ANY FUCKING REASON THEY WANT. And the 16th amendment comes later in time, so it supercedes anything that Article I, Section 8 may say to the contrary. No, you are quite wrong, ExNYer. The 16th Amendment augments Article I, Section 8, it does not “supersede” it. The verbiage in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 was not changed by the 16th Amendment.

Ҥ 904. Before proceeding to consider the nature and extent of the power conferred by this clause, and the reasons, on which it is founded, it seems necessary to settle the grammatical construction of the clause, and to ascertain its true reading. Do the words, "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," constitute a distinct, substantial power; and the words, "to pay debts and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States," constitute another distinct and substantial power? Or are the latter words connected with the former, so as to constitute a qualification upon them? This has been a topic of political controversy; and has furnished abundant materials for popular declamation and alarm. If the former be the true interpretation, then it is obvious, that under colour of the generality of the words to "provide for the common defence and general welfare," the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; if the latter be the true construction, then the power of taxation only is given by the clause, and it is limited to objects of a national character, "for the common defence and the general welfare."

§ 905. The former opinion has been maintained by some minds of great ingenuity, and liberality of views.1 The latter has been the generally received sense of the nation, and seems supported by reasoning at once solid and impregnable. The reading, therefore, which will be maintained in these commentaries, is that, which makes the latter words a qualification of the former; and this will be best illustrated by supplying the words, which are necessarily to be understood in this interpretation. They will then stand thus: "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;" that is, for the purpose of paying the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. In this sense, congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but it is limited to specific objects, -- the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority.” Justice Story

EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, Article I, Section 8, only talks about a power to TAX, it says NOTHING about spending. You equivocate, ExNYer. The verbiage in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 remained unchanged!

The DoD is a spending issue, not a taxing issue and Congress has plenary power to SPEND any way it wants to. This is a lesson that conservatives are supposed to be painfully aware of. Congress controls the purse strings - like it or not. Squirm, squirm, squirm, you pretentious asshole. Justice Story repudiates your lame-ass notion that Congress can elect NOT to “provide for the common defence”, ExNYer. Even though you try, you cannot deny the words printed in the Constitution.

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...t_pwrcong.html

[Guest032516]

Dear IB Hankerwrong:

When you use a word like "suzerainty", you lose the right to call anyone else pretentious. And, of course, you copied it. No one here believes that a shit for brains like you wrote that himself..

I asked you to cite a Supreme Court CASE that said the Congress had to spend money on defense (or anything else for that matters) and you came back with some kind of text book apparently authored by Justice Story.

For starters, Story died in 1845. He wasn't around when the 16th Amendment was passed. So nothing he said is relevant to the 16th Amendment.

Second, the opinions of ONE SCt Justice are NOT holdings of the Supreme Court. Scalia thought Obamacare was unconstitutional, but he lost 5-4. Like it or not Obamacare is CONSTITUTIONAL. So if you want to prove that Congress is mandated to SPEND money on the DoD, FIND A CASE decided by the Supreme Court. You won't.

Second, NOTHING Story wrote repudiates what I said. I actually AGREE with what he wrote. But he was writing about the POWER to collect taxes, NOT about a REQUIREMENT to spend it on anything. Do you NOT see the difference?

If Congress raised 100 billion and 1 dollars in taxes and decided to spend $100 billion on the "general welfare" and $1 on the DoD, what do you do then? How is that unconstitutional?

If an amendment to the Constitution contradicts or modifies an earlier provision, then it supercedes it. Period. That's the way laws are interpreted. There is NOTHING in the language of the 16th amendment that obligates income taxes to be spent in any particular way. For that matter, nothing in Article I, Section 8 obligates Congress to spend the money in any particular way.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1, grants a POWER to Congress. It does NOT obligate spending on the DoD. Once again, find a Supreme Court case. It has been over 220 years. There should be one by now.

And your assertion that I "refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution is a legal document – the supreme statute" is stupid and perfectly fitting for you. Where did I ever say that? Stop putting words in my mouth

And sorry, but the Preamble does not and never has "carr[ied] the weight of law." Find a Supreme Court decision.

College professors have a saying "Don't fight the hypothetical". You are completely ignoring the questions I asked in order to avoid answering the hypothetical.

So, here it is again.

What if a Congress of Dennis Kucinich types zeroes out the DoD? Who do you turn to for a remedy? Do you sue in court? The President? What do you demand? A certain level of spending?

The Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse strings. They can spend however they want. What do you do if they don't vote to fund the DoD? Who has power over them under the Constitution?

[Doove]

I'm still waiting for people who think we need to cut spending to tell us how much it should be cut.

What's a fair budget?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

If Congress raised 100 billion and 1 dollars in taxes and decided to spend $100 billion on the "general welfare" and $1 on the DoD, what do you do then? How is that unconstitutional?
?

That is the practical point that IB is missing. There would be no law broken if what you wrote, happened. Nobody would be thrown in jail.

How much we spend and the extent we defend ourself is subjective. IB might not care for how little congress decides to spend but there is now law that they have broken if it only spends one dollar.

How hard is that to understand. You have backed yourself into a indefensible corner IB.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Doove

I'm still waiting for people who think we need to cut spending to tell us how much it should be cut.

What's a fair budget?

I think they are ok with a 5% tax rate....what ever that comes out to, they want to spend that. They want the best Defense, the best R&D , the best roads all for a 5% tax rate!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Dear IB Hankerwrong:

When you use a word like "suzerainty", you lose the right to call anyone else pretentious. And, of course, you copied it. No one here believes that a shit for brains like you wrote that himself.. Nothing you’ve posted, ExNyer, mitigates the fact that you are a pretentious, lying sack of shit.

I asked you to cite a Supreme Court CASE that said the Congress had to spend money on defense (or anything else for that matters) and you came back with some kind of text book apparently authored by Justice Story. At Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states that Congress has to spend the money it raises via taxation to “provide for the common defence”, jackass – and yes, Justice Story is an authoritative source, and it figures you ignorantly do not know who he was.

For starters, Story died in 1845. He wasn't around when the 16th Amendment was passed. So nothing he said is relevant to the 16th Amendment. Once again, you stupid SOB, the 16th Amendment did not change the requirements stipulated at Article I, Section 8, in the Constitution.

Second, the opinions of ONE SCt Justice are NOT holdings of the Supreme Court. Scalia thought Obamacare was unconstitutional, but he lost 5-4. Like it or not Obamacare is CONSTITUTIONAL. So if you want to prove that Congress is mandated to SPEND money on the DoD, FIND A CASE decided by the Supreme Court. You won't. Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states that Congress has to spend the money it raises via taxation to “provide for the common defence”, & etc.

Second, NOTHING Story wrote repudiates what I said. I actually AGREE with what he wrote. But he was writing about the POWER to collect taxes, NOT about a REQUIREMENT to spend it on anything. Do you NOT see the difference? Justice Story repudiates your stance that Congress can elect to not “provide for the common defence” at § 462 in his work.

If Congress raised 100 billion and 1 dollars in taxes and decided to spend $100 billion on the "general welfare" and $1 on the DoD, what do you do then? How is that unconstitutional? You’re a dissembling asshole, ExNYer, but you have inadvertently, through your equivocating ignorance, admitted that there IS an extant Constitutional requirement for Congress to “provide for the common defence.”

BTW, $1 doesn’t buy a single bullet for the Barrett M82 Sniper Rifle, or a pair of OD Green socks for a soldier or a nurse administered aspirin for a wounded veteran in a VA hospital; so, by definition, $1 is not “providing for the common defence.”

If an amendment to the Constitution contradicts or modifies an earlier provision, then it supercedes it. Period. That's the way laws are interpreted. There is NOTHING in the language of the 16th amendment that obligates income taxes to be spent in any particular way. For that matter, nothing in Article I, Section 8 obligates Congress to spend the money in any particular way. The 16th Amendment did not supersede the requirement in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution that states Congress has to spend the money it raises via taxation to “provide for the common defence”, & etc.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1, grants a POWER to Congress. It does NOT obligate spending on the DoD. Once again, find a Supreme Court case. It has been over 220 years. There should be one by now. You are an ignorant and belligerent fuck, ExNYer. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that money Congress raises via taxation will be spent to “provide for the common defence”, & etc. There is no equivocation in the text.

And your assertion that I "refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution is a legal document – the supreme statute" is stupid and perfectly fitting for you. Where did I ever say that? Stop putting words in my mouth It IS your ignorant and absurd contention that Congress can willy-nilly ignore the statute that IS the Constitution, ExNYer! No one is putting words into your mouth -- that is YOUR patently fallacious argument, ExNYer.

And sorry, but the Preamble does not and never has "carr[ied] the weight of law." Find a Supreme Court decision. The Preamble defines the “purpose” for the Constitution and the government it creates. The Preamble reflects the agreement the people entered into with the government when they ratified the Constitution; wherein, they surrendered certain aspects of their individual liberty in exchange for protection of life and property. That “purpose” delineates the “social contract” – the “social contract” defined and explained by the great philosophes such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau in their “social contract” theories and whose theories Jefferson, Madison and company read and incorporated into two of this nation’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. Hence that purpose legally binds the government to “provide for the common defence”, & etc. Absent that “purpose” the Constitution is a meaningless document.

College professors have a saying "Don't fight the hypothetical". You are completely ignoring the questions I asked in order to avoid answering the hypothetical. You’re a moronic jackass, ExNYer. You’re the one proffering the completely bogus hypothetical when you state a “$1” defense budget meets the requirements stipulated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

So, here it is again.

What if a Congress of Dennis Kucinich types zeroes out the DoD? Who do you turn to for a remedy? Do you sue in court? The President? What do you demand? A certain level of spending? Once again, ExNYer, you are conceding, through your equivocating ignorance, that there IS an extant Constitutional requirement for Congress to “provide for the common defence.” You’ve yielded on that point; thus, you’ve admitted you’ve had your ass handed to you, ExNYer!

The Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse strings. They can spend however they want. What do you do if they don't vote to fund the DoD? Who has power over them under the Constitution? You are just a dissembling asshole, ExNYer. Your attempts to deflect the argument away from your assertion that Congress could elect not to “provide for the common defence” has been found to be ridiculously wanting. Justice Story repudiates your stance that Congress can elect to not “provide for the common defence” at § 462 in his work. Your ignorant assertion has been authoritatively rejected! Now run along like the ignorant and foolish child you are, ExNYer.

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is the practical point that IB is missing. There would be no law broken if what you wrote, happened. Nobody would be thrown in jail.

How much we spend and the extent we defend ourself is subjective. IB might not care for how little congress decides to spend but there is now law that they have broken if it only spends one dollar.

How hard is that to understand. You have backed yourself into a indefensible corner IB.

WTF, you're ignoring ExNYer's ignorant and patently fallacious contention that Congress is NOT bound by the Constitution to "provide for the common defence." Surely, you don't mean to join him in that very ignorant assertion.