Vitor Pamplona on Nostr: I feel like this has broader implications... The DOJ gave three rationales for the ...
I feel like this has broader implications...
The DOJ gave three rationales for the argument that "Money is not necessarily 'property' for constitutional purposes": (1) the government creates money, so you can't own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the "general welfare."
https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=reason_brand&utm_content=autoshare&utm_term=post
The DOJ gave three rationales for the argument that "Money is not necessarily 'property' for constitutional purposes": (1) the government creates money, so you can't own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the "general welfare."
https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=reason_brand&utm_content=autoshare&utm_term=post