Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 406
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
Starscream66 285
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 273
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70868
biomed164175
Yssup Rider61746
gman4453559
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48942
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37734
CryptKicker37276
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-12-2012, 07:01 PM   #286
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post

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 is offline   Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:03 PM   #287
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen View Post
you really didn't expect honest give and take did you????
Not if IB Hankerwrong is involved.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 06:12 AM   #288
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post

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.

I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 07:45 AM   #289
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
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.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 07:51 AM   #290
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post

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.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 12:07 PM   #291
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post

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
.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 06:05 PM   #292
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
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.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 06:13 PM   #293
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

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
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 09:08 AM   #294
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
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.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved