he gets it and james mattis not so much. there is asy case.ant case the supreme court decides which sheep before john marshall and almost none of you know it.■toti heard of it but did not know what it was about. alexander hamilton comes out of retirement to defend and to do it the only time he ever argues a ce before the supreme court and winds at unanimously and it's all abouttis this is in direct it's a direct tax. supr says unanimously wrong said it hamilton in washington you have they tell you in this case it is original as emmett ends the amicus brief. it was submitted to t this is why we have special rules for directd one word slav. here is the problem. a few contacts cloth at its a low rate but uniform you contactslo rate. you can tax heads of lettuce. you can tax heads of tobacco. i few could do that without yous of slaves. you could tax slavery out of existee in the south will not go for that. there is special rules when you're taxing heads because they're worried about taxing the heads of slaves. an he picked connecticut and mississi

james mattis is considered mr. constitution.e of nullification was raised with him by a former senator, edward everett. james mattis wrote a very long letter back to him in august 28, 1830. he said this in part thus being derived from the same source as the constitutions of the states, it has within each state this idea of nullification. the same authority as the constitution of the stage. it is as much a constitution in the strictest sense of the term within the prescribed sphere as the constitutions of the states are within their respective spheres. the obvious and essential difference being a compact among the states that is the constitution and their highest sovereign capacity the states adopted the amendments excuse me the constitution. and concentrating the people there of a one people for certain purposes you are a citizen of a state you are also a citizen of the united states under the federal constitution. it cannot be altered or an old at the will of the states individually as the constitution of the states may be at i

military, which is as former secretary of defense james mattis said, requires at least a 3% to 5% real growth above inflation. due to the decision to consolidate our defense industry over 30 years ago, a marriage that the industrial base is brittle and unable to mobilize without significant investment. while defense allocation under the f.r.a. is too low to meet america's national security needs, it is the law of the land. this bill is written to be consistent with this law. today's threats mandate a resolute united states, made credible with capability lethal and a ready military. the defense appropriations subcommittee scrutinized the fiscal year 2025 budget request line by line and conducted rigorous oversight. this resulted in $18 billion in cuts of requests that were necessary or unjustified. this bill provides no blank checks. instead this bill builds on the priorities from fiscal year 2024. these priorities include prioritizing the fight against china, promoting innovation and modernization, supporting our service members and their families, optimizing the pentagon civilian work