Congress has the power to levy and levy income taxes, regardless of its source, without distribution between the different states and without taking into account a population census. No one can doubt that this does not extend the powers of Congress to pass measures they deem useful to the common defence. However, suppose that the notions of a given power admit two constructs, one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is in accordance with the words. . ; If one promotes common defence and beats the other, shouldn`t the former be adopted according to the most reasonable principles of interpretation? Are we free to adopt, according to principles of reason or common sense, a restrictive meaning that will defeat an avowed object of the Constitution, if another is just as natural and more appropriate for the object? 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States . The phrase “a more perfect Union” was interpreted as referring to the abandonment of the Constitution of the Statutes.  The simultaneous meaning of the word “perfect” was complete, complete, fully informed, confident or secure.  The sentence has been interpreted in different ways throughout history, depending on the context of time. Thus, shortly after the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court declared that the “Union” was made “more perfect” by the creation of a federal government with sufficient power to respond directly to citizens, and not by a government with narrowly limited power, which could only act indirectly on citizens through the states. , for example, tax collection.B.  In addition, the institution was created as a government over states and people, not as an agreement (Union) between states.  The Court rejected the relevance of the preamble in constitutional decisions. In 1905, at Jacobson v.
Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws could not be challenged or declared unconstitutional, based on the preamble. The Court stated: “Although this preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordered and established the Constitution, it was never considered the source of material power transferred to the United States government or any of its departments.” In the rare cases of the last century in which the preamble was mentioned, the Court summarily challenged its importance to constitutional law.