On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:03:15 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


[snip]

I'm a fan of less engineering. The power to tax is the power
destroy.

I don't know where you got that aphorism, but it's a silly one. Of
course
it
can provide the power do destroy. But without it, there would be
nothing
worth destroying.

Daniel Webster and John Marshall.

Google is your friend: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1798.html

Joe Gwinn

Except that's not what Webster was arguing. He was arguing FOR federal
taxation power over the *states*, in McCullouch v. Maryland. He wasn't
talking about the value of taxation in general. Nor was Marshall, who
essentially quoted Webster.

The irony here is that the example you're citing is the origin of the
jurisprudence concerning the Necessary and Proper clause of the
Constitution, which says that the federal government can override any
state
law that interferes with federal power.

As I said, of course it can provide the power to destroy, if that's how
it's used. Without it, used properly, there's nothing left to destroy. By
taking a quote out of context Wes has flipped its meaning on its back.

Ed, you asked where the "silly aphorism" came from. Now you know.

Right. Thanks for the silly aphorism reference, Joe. g

The funny thing is that I remember McCulloch very well, but not that quote.
The case was about federal supremacy -- which was affirmed by Marshall's
decision. I think the aphorism has taken on a life of its own, stripped of
context, and that people who quote it would be nonplussed to learn what
Webster was talking about: the authority of the federal government to set
tax and banking policy, over the heads of the states.

I don't know that Webster would agree with you here. I think that while
there was a specific case then at hand, the statement was general. It's
clearly true. Let's say that by some mistake a SUV-hater is anointed
King, and immediately imposes a very large annual tax on SUVs. How long
will SUVs survive?

Joe Gwinn


Indeed. the statement is most valid.

Ed just doesnt like to think about the implications and tends to try to
avoid them.

Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""