yeah, abge! way to lack the smack down by going to the source.

it's abhorrent how so many people these days are arguing about the constitution while having not even read the document.

Good God, the US constitution actually says that?!? It's basically saying Congress can tax people for whatever the hell they feel like :p! You guys make such a fuss about that constitution of yours when in reality it's not worth the paper it's printed on!

I'm with Octavious. I have literally no idea why some Americans are so obsessed with their constitution. Literally, guys like Draugnar and Krellin seem to treat it like it's a religious text...

It always gets me when people try to argue using the constitution in terms of "what the founding fathers intended". Uhhh, the founding fathers had some neat ideas but they wrote the damn thing in the late 1700s. That's just barely at the beginning of the industrial revolution, (which started in England in the 1750s, it took a while to reach America). Surely you have to acknowledge that the world has changed since then. Why make decisions about what some long dead guys would have wanted? We should probably make decisions based on what's actually a good idea now.

Well, unless you ascribe some god-like authority to the founding fathers, which is what the constitution-bashers tend to do, if you ask me.

"The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous"
#################################################################

The americans can replace their bullshit constitution with that Orwell quote.

Full stop.

@Mafia

"Why make decisions about what some long dead guys would have wanted? We should probably make decisions based on what's actually a good idea now."

I agree 100%. However, since some people like using the intentions of the founding fathers as an argument, I thought I'd point out that they clearly were in favor of promoting science at the federal level.

You are correct (I mean everyne who has posted to this point) that discovering what the founders of the United States meant is impracticle in modern times, however, as the constitution of the United States is the ultimate law for the United States it should be followed in the United States. True the consittution says that congress can tax for whatever purpose they want (as was cited above) it is clearly specified what congress can SPEND the money on, the options for which are enumerated later in that same article. Also, while it is evident that the founding fathers cared about the promotion of the sciences (and we just agreed that we don't care what they thought anyway) the way they wrote it into the constitution specifically says that the promotion of the sciences is to take place through patent and copyright laws (and therefore by the tenth amendment no other method is to be used by congress or the federal governemnt). By the way the tenth amendment says that all powers not delegated to congress by the constitution are reserved for the states and the people. So this can't be used to justify federal taxes to support the sciences, or any other means besides copyrights and patents, or rather is allows the collection of said taxes, but they can then be spent only in the ways described later in article one, the enforcement of patents being one of them.

@pjkon

1) That makes no sense. Why would you be allowed to tax for something but not spend the money on that?

2) You're wrong. AIS8 clearly states "...provide for the common Defense ***and promote general Welfare*** of the United States..."

Note the word "provide". Taxing ins't providing. The Constitution clearly states that congress is allowed to spend money for the general Welfare.

@Jamie - I haven't said a word here nor about the constitution beyond basicbthings like freedom of speech, religion, and press and clarification of what it says about separation of church and state. So fuck off fucktard.

@Abge -The general welfare? What the fuck does that have to do with science or the arts? Not that I care if we spend money on scientific research. Hell, I could live with Obamacare if it were an actual tax and not a mandate to buy a product thereby putting money a for profit industry's pockets.

@Draug

What do *you* think general welfare means? Seems to me to be a purposefully vague term.

General welfare is a purposely vague term. That is why it was used and why it is initial direct contradiction with the purpose of the document. As pjkon pointed out, specific powers and tasks were laid out for the Federal government in order to limit it's power. That amendment however was worded vaguely with the intention of getting rid of those limits.

@josh

You have no idea what you're talking about. This is not an amendment. It is in Article I. It is mentioned before anything pjkon brings up.

@Abge --- and other ---- Once again, if you would READ WHAT I WROTE in teh original discussion that you and I had, Abge, I have **already** adressed the *SPECIFIC* thing that you mention.

So, basically, you are all of the mindset that the "General Welfare" clause give the Federal government unlimited power. So, in other words, when they enumerated the powers of the Fed, and said all other powers go to the States, they were just making a joke, because in reality the Feds are unlimited.

So...Yebelz, other people that want to insult me...you simply make fools of yourself by suggesting I don't know what I am saying when Abge is continuing a prior discussion in which this SPECIFC issue was addressed and refuted already....Abge is just playing catch-up and addressing an issue that has already been dismissed...and, incidentally, which the Supreme Court is about to strike down in concept, as well.

Nice try, Abge...but your way behind on this. Next time try reading what I have written first. (I.e. It gets a little boring to have you folks suggest over and over again that I don't read....when it seems you are the ones with the problem in reading other people's arguments.)

@Jamie....the Constitution is not a religious text, it is simply the foundation upon which all the laws of our country are founded. Without the Constitution or some other governing document, what do you base your legal system upon? The idea that you are so foolish as to think the founding documents of a government are without meaning just demonstrates how detached from reality you truly are. I suppose for you, it's mob rule and anything foes, right? Please explain upon WHAT we should found our laws if it is not upon the founding document?

@krellin: in regards to my comment "it's abhorrent how so many people these days are arguing about the constitution while having not even read the document."

Don't take that too personally. It wasn't really specifically directed at you, but really just a disparaging remark about the general attitude of many.

Good work, krellin! I'm sure you that you've won all teh internets through your enlightened discussion.

@krellin

I've shown you a direct quote that supports my stance.

Kindly respond with a quote that supports your stance and counters my quote or fuck off.

@yebellz -- I can't even take your comments there seriously. Before you throw insults (I'm sure you that you've won all teh internets through your enlightened discussion. ) why don't you man up and snwer what I have offer (unlimited federal power versus the idea that Fed power is intentionally limited as compared to States rights). Seriously...it's not like this isn't a legitimate disucssion point -- but it's easy to just throw insult, I know. I here complaints *constantly* that I don't answer people arguments. here, as I often do, I have *directly* addressed the argument...and your reply? Childish bullshit. This is why I spend so much of my time insulting the general populous here...because it's truly not worth the time to actually engage in conversation of intellectual exchange, and therefore trolling becomes a more amusing way to pass the time.

Just so everyone is clear, this is the stellar response which I supposedly didn't read in the other thread:

krellin:
"Abge...I WILL NOT give yo the section of the constitution. IF you have read it, then YOU prove to me that the Federal government has unlimited ability to spend on social welfare, education programs, etc etc etc....basically, that the Federal Government has *unlimited* power to tax and spend on whatever the hell they deem as nice-to-have....such as YOUR favored program, which could and SHOULD be funded by private interests, which WILL NOT fund them (and therefore NOT require results) as long as the Feds fund them.

What YOU fail to grasp, Abge, is that Federal funding is a HINDERANCE, not a benefit.

As long as I have a politician in my pocket, and I get Federal funding until the cows come home, whether or not I produce a result.

When your funding is proivded by FOR-PROFIT organizations....suddenly you have to produce results that are beneficial.

Interesting thing going on in the world. Government Funded Solar companies are failing like falling dominoes. Why? Because...they HAD Federal subsidies....and when the free cash stopped flowing (i.e. subsidies ended) they couldn't produce a product worth buying. I.E. It costs more to build and install Solar than it saves....it is NOT a value added propositiion, and thus one after another solar companieds are going under with Federal help. The Federal money DISTORTED the market....made "viable" what is naturally unviable.

a German solar company just went bankrupt under similar conditions. THAT is the problelm with federal funding...

But the REAL problem with Federal funding is....IT IS UNCONSTITUOINAL.

Don't ask me to prove a negative, Abge...YOU PROVE THAT IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL."


My response:
"@krellin

OK, I'll play your game.

I have to finish my proposal, but when I'm done tonight, I'll reread the constitution (I have a hard copy and everything) and get back to you."


Apparently, krellin forgot about this little conversation of ours...

@Maple

The is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his true messenger.

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

General welfare, by the way, means the overall good state of being of the country.

In our modern parlance we would say "in America's interest"

And funding every trargetted program (NSF, for example) benefits the ggod of the country, how? After all , there are some in this country that prefer to live a simple life without technology....What if NSF funding goes towards rsearching better ways to drill oil....thus harming the environment? Or funds something that kills the oil industry, thus destroying jbos? It isn't so cut and dry to simply say "funding NSF" is clearly good for all. Depending on the individuals standpoint, it is or isn't.

Abge....I didn't forget out conversation. I remember....I also remember that you post some public challenge directly to me and fail to mention that I ALREADY ADDRESSED the point you asked me to comment on....

You are wasting my time...

'Hell, I could live with Obamacare if it were an actual tax and not a mandate to buy a product thereby putting money a for profit industry's pockets. '

I guess there was no way Obama could institute a NHS style nation health system, with government competing directly in the health care market, providing health care free at the point of use to all the people, paid for by taxation - whether Obama wanted to or not, this would be political suicide for the supporters...

@abge - Now that I have more than just a quick second, generally poor wording on my part and definitely not an amendment. However your quotes are a part of what pjkon makes reference to, which is that what the Federal government can do is restricted to what is specifically designated. Nice try though. Taking a quote out of the context and style of the entire document is dishonest. What each part of the government is allowed to do is written out in the various Articles and Sections, and anyone who knows anything about why it was written that way understands it was to limit power, not give a free pass to do whatever they wanted. The interpretation that you suggest based off of taking the quote about general welfare out of that context is just plain wrong, and I think you know it. You just believe it is a clever argument to justify the type of government you want instead of the one that was established. As far as the science argument goes, yes they thought progress in the sciences was a good thing. That is why they put that in there to protect people who spent there time and resources to develope new technology. To suggest that they intended the government to lead the way in this area is more than a stretch. Had that been the intention, there would be a specific passage in one of the Sections stating the government would research new sciences and technologies, or something to that effect.

'When your funding is proivded by FOR-PROFIT organizations....suddenly you have to produce results that are beneficial.'

There are only specific 'produces' which can be made 'for profit' - for example, a one-shot reversible 10 year contraception method for men is not very profitable - because it costs very little and is only needed once every 10 years - thus other more expensive contraception methods are more profitable and get more advertising...

The 'general welfare' is not necessarily supported by only the profit motive.

Imagine if companies provided primary education - and then decided to dump american jobs for foreign workers, without bothering to worry about the workers which they were dumping or how they would be re-trained...

@josh

I don't think I'm being dishonest.

The reality is this: if the NSF was unconstitutional then why is it still around? It's the supreme courts job to decide if something is unconstitutional and clearly they agree with me (or no one has cared enough to make them question it).

I'll give you an excellent example of why your reasoning is flawed:

The constitution gives congress the power to provide for the common defense. It goes on to say that congress may support and oversee an army and a navy. It makes no mention of an air force (why would it?).

Is the Air Force unconstitutional? No, of course not. Congress can provide for the common defense. But, you can't have it both ways when interpreting the constitution.

@Abge - It is not the Supreme Court's job to decide if everything is constitutional. It only makes those decisions if something has been challenged and worked it's way through the system to the USSC. Otherwise, the USSC doesn't act on anything as it isn't within their mandate to just randomly decide something that doesn't get challenged and hasn't made it to their docket.

@Draug

I'm well aware of that.

You'll note that I said:

" (or no one has cared enough to make them question it)."