"Fair Share"?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions.

Really?

I asserted that Congress could spend nothing on defense and it would NOT be unconstitutional. Show me where Story addressed and repudiated that assertion.

You can't, can you? Because you have misquoted him and taken him out of context. He wrote that the general welfare clause did NOT give Congress unlimited power. He never said anything about mandated defense spending.

You got ass handed to you with your head still in it.

But that doesn't sink in with you, does it?

You are trying to copy the Joseph Goebbels tactic of telling a lie and repeating often enough until people think its true.

You stake yourself to any ridiculous position you can to try and say what the government can and cannot do in order to fit your world view. I don't like the fact that Congress can spend zero if defense if they so choose. They won't ever do it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is entirely constitutional to do so.

So, IB Hankerwrong, if Congress does zero out the DoD, who do you take your appeal to? One of those Republic of Texas "courts"? LOL.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Really?

I asserted that Congress could spend nothing on defense and it would NOT be unconstitutional. Show me where Story addressed and repudiated that assertion.

You can't, can you? Because you have misquoted him and taken him out of context. He wrote that the general welfare clause did NOT give Congress unlimited power. He never said anything about mandated defense spending.

You got ass handed to you with your head still in it.

But that doesn't sink in with you, does it?

You are trying to copy the Joseph Goebbels tactic of telling a lie and repeating often enough until people think its true.

You stake yourself to any ridiculous position you can to try and say what the government can and cannot do in order to fit your world view. I don't like the fact that Congress can spend zero if defense if they so choose. They won't ever do it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is entirely constitutional to do so.

So, IB Hankerwrong, if Congress does zero out the DoD, who do you take your appeal to? One of those Republic of Texas "courts"? LOL.

So you want to start that stupid-ass "show-me" shit again, ExNYer, after Justice Story has already been quoted and cited above? Well here you go; deal with it, you illiterate, equivocating jackass: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=234

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
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.

If repeating the facts is necessary; then the facts will be repeated: You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. So it's you who will not admit you are wrong, ExNYer. It's time for you to pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road, ExNYer.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

yea, your a real tough guy on the internet while you sit in your mother's basement

as to my spelling, I posted at 11:31pm and I was on my 4th scotch, what was your excuse?

Nice pic now we all know what you look like capt fat ass,

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So you want to start that stupid-ass "show-me" shit again, ExNYer, after Justice Story has already been quoted and cited above? Well here you go; deal with it, you illiterate, equivocating jackass: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=234

Sorry, shit-for-brains, but you STILL haven't shown me where Justice Story says that defense spending is mandated.

The text of his book that you cited states:
------------------------------------------
§ 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------
The text above says that if the words of the Constitution giving Congress the POWER to tax has two possible constructions and one interpretation promotes the common defense while the other interpretation defeats the common defense, then the first interpretation should be adopted.

In other words, don't interpret the Power to tax clause in a way that restricts that power. Ironically enough, YOU are interpreting the terms of Article 1, Section 8 in a way that restricts the power to tax (according to how it is spent). That is the OPPOSITE of what Justice Story said about interpreting the language. But I guess you are too stupid to realize that, eh?

Again, where does Story explain how much spending is mandated? Can you show me THAT?

NO, you can't. Or you would have done so by now.

Also, you cannot tell me what your recourse would be if Congress eliminated the defense budget. If you could, you would have done so by now.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

"§ 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?"

Hey shit for brains! Note how Justice Story points out that the construction that promotes "providing for the common defence" is the "former" and "soundest interpretation", and how Justice Story rejects the notion of the "other", the latter one, which would defeat providing for the common defense. Can you not read, you illiterate asshole?

God you are an ignorant moron, aren't you ExNYer? Again -- just for your illiterate ass! Paragraphs § 904 & § 905 (FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL FUCKING TIME!) @: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=234

You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. So it's you who will not admit you are wrong, ExNYer. It's time for you to pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road, ExNYer.

[i'va biggen]

Had your ass handed to you again hankering?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hey shit for brains! Note how Justice Story points out that the construction that promotes "providing for the common defence" is the "former" and "soundest interpretation", and how Justice Story rejects the notion of the "other", the latter one, which would defeat providing for the common defense. Can you not read, you illiterate asshole?

With respect to a liberal construction or a restrictive construction, Story said that the construction that would promote the common defense (the "former") should be adopted, not the "other" one, which would defeat the common defense.

He was talking about restrictions on the POWER TO TAX. He said NOTHING about how it had to be spent. You're reading into it your own conclusions.

Story wanted the goverment to be able to raise money for defense and common welfare AS NEEDED and did not want a construction that prevented Congress from raising the money in the first place. He said nothing about mandated spending. Please point out where he did.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

God you are an ignorant moron, aren't you ExNYer? Again -- just for your illiterate ass! Paragraphs § 904 & § 905 (FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL FUCKING TIME!)

Who the fuck are you kidding? There is NEVER a final time with you. You can't wait to respond. We all know it. The fourth time is coming up.

But thank you for reminding me about §905. You just destroyed your own argument. Here is the text:
-----------------------------------------------
§ 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
-------------------------------------------------------------
The most important word in that whole paragraph is "neither".

Congress only has to point to ONE object of the tax. It could be for payment of the public debt, or providing for the general welfare, or for providing for the common defense.

So, the Supreme Court can declare a TAX unconstitutional ONLY if it does not serve AT LEAST ONE of those 3 objects. The tax does NOT have to serve all three objects.

Can you think of a tax that cannot be classified as promoting the general welfare in at least some respect?

Well, the Supreme Court CANNOT think of one. That is why in the Supreme Court decisions that I referenced above, the Supreme Court has essentially refused to review taxing and spending policies of Congress. If Congress taxes or spends badly, the ONLY remedy for the public is the next election, NOT the judicial system.

Now do you get it?

Not only does Justice Story NOT support your assertions about "mandated" DoD spending, the Supreme Court precedents do NOT either.

And, I might add, the Supreme Court precedents are what controls, not what Justice Story wrote prior to 1845, even if he is not in conflict with the Supreme Court. I notice you steadfastly refuse to address the Supreme Court decisions and instead continue to take Justice Story's comments out of context.

[MrGiz]

You silly, self-important phuckers have ruined what could have been an interesting thread! All we have learned, is what self-absorbed, no-life, google-copying, idiots you are!

Thanks for NOTHING!! Now I can finally unsubscribe from this incredibly boring thread!

[Chica Chaser]

Standby Giz, there will be another one just like it along soon.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

With respect to a liberal construction or a restrictive construction, Story said that the construction that would promote the common defense (the "former") should be adopted, not the "other" one, which would defeat the common defense.

He was talking about restrictions on the POWER TO TAX. He said NOTHING about how it had to be spent. You're reading into it your own conclusions.

Story wanted the goverment to be able to raise money for defense and common welfare AS NEEDED and did not want a construction that prevented Congress from raising the money in the first place. He said nothing about mandated spending. Please point out where he did.


Who the fuck are you kidding? There is NEVER a final time with you. You can't wait to respond. We all know it. The fourth time is coming up.

But thank you for reminding me about §905. You just destroyed your own argument. Here is the text:
-----------------------------------------------
§ 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
-------------------------------------------------------------
The most important word in that whole paragraph is "neither".

Congress only has to point to ONE object of the tax. It could be for payment of the public debt, or providing for the general welfare, or for providing for the common defense.

So, the Supreme Court can declare a TAX unconstitutional ONLY if it does not serve AT LEAST ONE of those 3 objects. The tax does NOT have to serve all three objects.

Can you think of a tax that cannot be classified as promoting the general welfare in at least some respect?

Well, the Supreme Court CANNOT think of one. That is why in the Supreme Court decisions that I referenced above, the Supreme Court has essentially refused to review taxing and spending policies of Congress. If Congress taxes or spends badly, the ONLY remedy for the public is the next election, NOT the judicial system.

Now do you get it?

Not only does Justice Story NOT support your assertions about "mandated" DoD spending, the Supreme Court precedents do NOT either.

And, I might add, the Supreme Court precedents are what controls, not what Justice Story wrote prior to 1845, even if he is not in conflict with the Supreme Court. I notice you steadfastly refuse to address the Supreme Court decisions and instead continue to take Justice Story's comments out of context.

Your ignorant POV on spending is only possible if you ignorantly try to separate it from taxing: if Congress levies and collects taxes, then it is required to spend “to provide for the common defence,” & etc. Further, your ignorant POV on Justice Story’s work is only possible if you willfully an ignorantly ignore what Justice Story wrote in the preceding sentences, ExNYer.


Ҥ 904. . . . 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. [B]A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority.” Justice Story.

There is no equivocation in the conjunction “AND”! It confers the meaning that Congress “WILL” “provide for the common defence” when it levies and collects taxes. Justice Story states that there is no room for equivocation in Article I, Section 8.

You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. So it's you who will not admit you are wrong, ExNYer. It's time for you to pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road, ExNYer.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your ignorant POV on spending is only possible if you ignorantly try to separate it from taxing: if Congress levies and collects taxes, then it is required to spend “to provide for the common defence,” & etc. Further, your ignorant POV on Justice Story’s work is only possible if you willfully an ignorantly ignore what Justice Story wrote in the preceding sentences, ExNYer.

Ҥ 904. . . . 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. [B]A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority.” Justice Story.

There is no equivocation in the conjunction “AND”! It confers the meaning that Congress “WILL” “provide for the common defence” when it levies and collects taxes. Justice Story states that there is no room for equivocation in Article I, Section 8.

HAH! I knew it. Is this the fourth and final time?

And - in case you missed it - there is also no equivocation in the word "neither".

Like it or not, even Justice Story thinks Congress has the power to tax so long as the tax is directed to at least one of those three objects.

So how, do you rule a tax unconstitutional if Congress is providing for the general welfare but NOT providing for the common defense? The answer is you cannot. Only an election fixes that. The Supreme Court says so!

Consider your ridiculous constitutional theories authoritatively debunked. By the Supreme Court and Justice Story no less.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

HAH! I knew it. Is this the fourth and final time? You are purposefully misconstruing a previous post, ExNYer.


And - in case you missed it - there is also no equivocation in the word "neither". You did, ExNYer! You're purposefully and ignorantly taking that phrase out of context.


Like it or not, even Justice Story thinks Congress has the power to tax so long as the tax is directed to at least one of those three objects. . . . AND spends on all three, ExNYer! AND Justice Story states as much in the preceding sentences despite your willful and ignorant blindness to the part where he states that Congress cannot interpret or subordinate into irrelevance any part of Article I, Section 8. Justice Story states that when Congress collects taxes it is Constitutionally obligated to spend “to provide for the common defence”, & etc.

So how, do you rule a tax unconstitutional if Congress is providing for the general welfare but NOT providing for the common defense? The answer is you cannot. Only an election fixes that. The Supreme Court says so! Justice Story states that Congress cannot interpret or subordinate into irrelevance any part of Article I, Section 8. Justice Story states that when Congress collects taxes it is Constitutionally obligated to spend “to provide for the common defence”, & etc.

Consider your ridiculous constitutional theories authoritatively debunked. By the Supreme Court and Justice Story no less.

There is no equivocation in the conjunction “AND”! It confers the meaning that Congress “WILL” “provide for the common defence” when it levies and collects taxes. Justice Story states that there is no room for equivocation in Article I, Section 8.

You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. So it's you who will not admit you are wrong, ExNYer. It's time for you to pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road, ExNYer.

[Yssup Rider]

You are wrong again, DIPSHIT.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You are wrong again, DIPSHIT.

Here’s Assup when he gets hysterically agitated:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=36

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=34

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=24

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=39

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

You silly, self-important phuckers have ruined what could have been an interesting thread! All we have learned, is what self-absorbed, no-life, google-copying, idiots you are!

Thanks for NOTHING!! Now I can finally unsubscribe from this incredibly boring thread!

you really didn't expect honest give and take did you????