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.
back
1 comments
The 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.
> 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.