"Fair Share"?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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.

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.

Horseshit!

Show me where Story says you must spend on all three?

In Story's book, §904 points out that the clause "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," is NOT a power separate from "to pay debts and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States".

If that was NOT the case, then "The Power ... to provide for the common defence and general welfare" would make the government of the United States, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers.

The "AND" you are obsessed about meant that liberals cannot construe the clause to read "The Congress shall have the Power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare." Under THAT construction, Congress would be free to do whatever it wanted even if a tax was NOT involved. So, they could pass a law requiring you to let your neighbor move into your house temporarily if his house burned down.

That was the "context" of Story's remarks.Story's aim was to RESTRICT the clause "provide for the common defense and general welfare" to the power to tax. So, Congress can TAX for those reasons, but it cannot claim the power to do other things for those reasons.

And Story's CONCLUSION was that a tax was unconstitutional ONLY if it did not serve one of the following three objects: "the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare." As he put it:

"A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority."

You have ignored the word "neither" and mentally re-written the conclusion to say "A tax, therefore, laid by congress for less than all of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority."

You have distorted Justice Story's words to support your own misstatement about "mandated spending".

But, more importantly, why do you keep relying on Justice Story? He has been dead since 1845. There has been a whole LOT of Supreme Court decisions since then.

Don't you have anything to say about Helvering v. Davis? That is the ACTUAL law - not Justice Story's treatise. What about any other Supreme Court cases? Can you cite ANY case that refers to mandated spending on defense?

Let's hear what you have to see in your "fifth and final time".More distortions of what Story said no doubt.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

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

Not if IB Hankerwrong is involved.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Horseshit!

Show me where Story says you must spend on all three?

In Story's book, §904 points out that the clause "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," is NOT a power separate from "to pay debts and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States".

If that was NOT the case, then "The Power ... to provide for the common defence and general welfare" would make the government of the United States, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers.

The "AND" you are obsessed about meant that liberals cannot construe the clause to read "The Congress shall have the Power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare." Under THAT construction, Congress would be free to do whatever it wanted even if a tax was NOT involved. So, they could pass a law requiring you to let your neighbor move into your house temporarily if his house burned down.

That was the "context" of Story's remarks.Story's aim was to RESTRICT the clause "[/SIZE]provide for the common defense and general welfare" to the power to tax. So, Congress can TAX for those reasons, but it cannot claim the power to do other things for those reasons.

And Story's CONCLUSION was that a tax was unconstitutional ONLY if it did not serve one of the following three objects: "the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare." As he put it:

"A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority."

You have ignored the word "neither" and mentally re-written the conclusion to say "A tax, therefore, laid by congress for less than all of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority."

You have distorted Justice Story's words to support your own misstatement about "mandated spending".

But, more importantly, why do you keep relying on Justice Story? He has been dead since 1845. There has been a whole LOT of Supreme Court decisions since then.

Don't you have anything to say about Helvering v. Davis? That is the ACTUAL law - not Justice Story's treatise. What about any other Supreme Court cases? Can you cite ANY case that refers to mandated spending on defense?

Let's hear what you have to see in your "fifth and final time".More distortions of what Story said no doubt.

You have been "shown" and rebuked at paragraphs § 462, § 904 and § 905. That you are ignorantly denying what Justice Joseph Story wrote, or that you are ignorantly incapable of understanding what Justice Joseph Story wrote is entirely on you, ExNYer.

You’ve been thoroughly and authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer; you’ve had your ass handed to you! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. 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

You have been "shown" and rebuked at paragraphs § 462, § 904 and § 905. That you are ignorantly denying what Justice Joseph Story wrote, or that you are ignorantly incapable of understanding what Justice Joseph Story wrote is entirely on you, ExNYer.

You’ve been thoroughly and authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer; you’ve had your ass handed to you! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. 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.

Repeat that ALL you want, but nothing Justice Story wrote rebuked anything I wrote. and you know it.

I gave you a perfectly lucid explanation about the differences in the spending power and the taxing power and you have NOTHING intelligent to say in response.

You cling to your initial misunderstanding of Story because you will NEVER admit you were wrong about anything.

And you will NEVER discuss actual Supreme court cases about spending power because you cannot find any to support your ridiculous idea about "mandated" defense spending.

And, God knows, you have been desperately searching Wikipedia for one.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Repeat that ALL you want, but nothing Justice Story wrote rebuked anything I wrote. and you know it.

I gave you a perfectly lucid explanation about the differences in the spending power and the taxing power and you have NOTHING intelligent to say in response.

You cling to your initial misunderstanding of Story because you will NEVER admit you were wrong about anything.

And you will NEVER discuss actual Supreme court cases about spending power because you cannot find any to support your ridiculous idea about "mandated" defense spending.

And, God knows, you have been desperately searching Wikipedia for one.

You have been "shown" and rebuked at paragraphs § 462, § 904 and § 905. That you are ignorantly denying what Justice Joseph Story wrote, or that you are ignorantly incapable of understanding what Justice Joseph Story wrote is entirely on you, ExNYer.

You’ve been thoroughly and authoritatively rebuked on every point, ExNYer; you’ve had your ass handed to you! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. 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

You have been "shown" and rebuked at paragraphs § 462, § 904 and § 905. That you are ignorantly denying what Justice Joseph Story wrote, or that you are ignorantly incapable of understanding what Justice Joseph Story wrote is entirely on you, ExNYer.

You’ve been thoroughly and authoritatively rebuked on every point, ExNYer; you’ve had your ass handed to you! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. 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.

Repeat that ALL you want, but nothing Justice Story wrote rebuked anything I wrote. And you know it.

I gave you a perfectly lucid explanation about the differences in the spending power and the taxing power and you have NOTHING intelligent to say in response.

You cling to your initial misunderstanding of Story because you will NEVER admit you were wrong about anything.

And you will NEVER discuss actual Supreme court cases about spending power because you cannot find any to support your ridiculous idea about "mandated" defense spending.

And, God knows, you have been desperately searching Wikipedia for one.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Repeat that ALL you want, but nothing Justice Story wrote rebuked anything I wrote. And you know it.

I gave you a perfectly lucid explanation about the differences in the spending power and the taxing power and you have NOTHING intelligent to say in response.

You cling to your initial misunderstanding of Story because you will NEVER admit you were wrong about anything.

And you will NEVER discuss actual Supreme court cases about spending power because you cannot find any to support your ridiculous idea about "mandated" defense spending.

And, God knows, you have been desperately searching Wikipedia for one.

Nothing has changed, ExNYer. You have been rebuked at paragraphs § 462, § 904 and § 905. That you are ignorantly denying what Justice Joseph Story wrote, or that you are ignorantly incapable of understanding what Justice Joseph Story wrote is entirely on you, ExNYer.

You’ve been thoroughly and authoritatively rebuked on every point, ExNYer; you’ve had your ass handed to you! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. 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]

I can cut-and-paste, too, bitch.
--------------------------------------------------
Repeat that ALL you want, but nothing Justice Story wrote rebuked anything I wrote. And you know it.

I gave you a perfectly lucid explanation about the differences in the spending power and the taxing power and you have NOTHING intelligent to say in response.

You cling to your initial misunderstanding of Story because you will NEVER admit you were wrong about anything.

And you will NEVER discuss actual Supreme court cases about spending power because you cannot find any to support your ridiculous idea about "mandated" defense spending.

And, God knows, you have been desperately searching Wikipedia for one

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I can cut-and-paste, too, bitch.
--------------------------------------------------
Repeat that ALL you want, but nothing Justice Story wrote rebuked anything I wrote. And you know it.

I gave you a perfectly lucid explanation about the differences in the spending power and the taxing power and you have NOTHING intelligent to say in response.

You cling to your initial misunderstanding of Story because you will NEVER admit you were wrong about anything.

And you will NEVER discuss actual Supreme court cases about spending power because you cannot find any to support your ridiculous idea about "mandated" defense spending.

And, God knows, you have been desperately searching Wikipedia for one

Nothing has changed, ExNYer. You have been rebuked at paragraphs § 462, § 904 and § 905. That you are ignorantly denying what Justice Joseph Story wrote, or that you are ignorantly incapable of understanding what Justice Joseph Story wrote is entirely on you, ExNYer.

You’ve been thoroughly and authoritatively rebuked on every point, ExNYer; you’ve had your ass handed to you! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions -- which, BTW, you haven't substantively supported with even a lames-ass Wiki citation. 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.