3 ms·
It's not new. The point of the footnote is to demonstrate that money and property are distinct for the kinda of constitutional argument attempted, and have bee
by kristjansson 2y ago
It's not new. The point of the footnote is to demonstrate that money and property are distinct for the kinda of constitutional argument attempted, and have been distinct since the founding.
- ty6853 2y agoThe article cited argued it is new. Maybe they are wrong, but I was incorporating the facts presented. If you have an uncited bone to pick with that, that is your uncited adversarial prerogative.
- kristjansson 2y ago> uncited The actual motion is linked from TFA. I should have been clearer that I was referring to that. It's worth reading the bits TFA extracts in the context of the motion, both for the supplied historical context and for clarity on the actual position taken.