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.
Originally Posted by ExNYer
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.
