5 ms·

I suspect that projects are always vetted against ideology, because everyone has one and everyone believes that his own is correct. I doubt that one could get

I suspect that projects are always vetted against ideology, because everyone has one and everyone believes that his own is correct. I doubt that one could get NSF funding for a study of racial differences in IQ. I am certain that one could not get it for any ‘research’ based on the idea that the Earth is 7,000 years old. That seems like a really good thing! I think the news is less that a branch of the executive is complying with executive branch policy, and more that it’s surprising how much of the federal government’s actions are based not in the law and the Constitution, but rather in policy. One man almost sixty years ago creates a policy with a stroke of a pen, and it effectively becomes law; another now removes it with a stroke of a different pen. If the latter is a problem, surely the former was too; if the former was not a problem, then why is the latter? Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies.

lesuorac 2y ago
> Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies. This is like saying I read the first sentence of the wikipedia article and it doesn't mention something so it must not exist. Congress authorized it in 1950; it's extremely visible. [1] > The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is authorized and governed by the "National Science Foundation Act of 1950," as amended, as well as other statutes authorizing NSF activities and making appropriations to the agency. [1]: https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation
- eadmund 2y ago
  Yes, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq is the legal basis for the NSF. What’s the Constitutional basis for that law? The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments. For example, the Congress does not have the power to regulate rents outside of federal territories. Which enumerated power enables 42 U.S.C 1861? The Tenth Amendment clearly states, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ If the Constitution does not grant a power to the Congress, it does not have it and it has no more legislative authority in that regard than you or I do.
  - brookst 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - eadmund 2y ago
      Yes, and then Article I, Section 8 goes on to explain what counts as the ‘common Defence and general Welfare’ when it enumerates the Congress’s powers. That’s not Sovereign Citizen nonsense — it’s very basic constitutional law. Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example.
      - yakz 2y ago
        The Supreme Court has decided what ‘the general welfare’ means, and it is not limited to the listed powers. This information is not difficult to find, as would be expected given the last 90ish years of spending that is obviously not limited to the list of powers.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        > Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example Rent control should be easy to fit within "general welfare".
        kristjansson 2y ago
        Congress not only _could_ control rents nationally, congress _has_ controlled rents nationally [1] and those controls survived the review of the court. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Price_Control_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Price_Control_Act_of...
    - SalmonSnarker 2y ago
      > You’re verging into SovCit stuff here. It's a reading of constitutional law that insists that the only thing that matters is what they can shallowly read in their pocket constitution, while totally ignoring most of the constitution itself and any of the surrounding court precedent. :) Eadmund incorrectly notes "The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments", and cites the tenth amendment while asking "What’s the Constitutional basis for that law?" Duh, the appointments clause in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause. :3 > Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers. The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with "broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise" of its more specific authorities. The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices. Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives. The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
sympil 2y ago
Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies. The Constitution is a collection of statements and they collectively have implications. All of Euclidean geometry is based off of 5 statements. That the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say you can have a Department of the Air Force does not imply having one is unconstitutional. Many Christians believe in the holy trinity despite that phrase appearing nowhere in the Bible.

lesuorac 2y ago

> Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies. This is like saying I read the first sentence of the wikipedia article and it doesn't mention something so it must not exist. Congress authorized it in 1950; it's extremely visible. [1] > The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is authorized and governed by the "National Science Foundation Act of 1950," as amended, as well as other statutes authorizing NSF activities and making appropriations to the agency. [1]: https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation

eadmund 2y ago
Yes, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq is the legal basis for the NSF. What’s the Constitutional basis for that law? The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments. For example, the Congress does not have the power to regulate rents outside of federal territories. Which enumerated power enables 42 U.S.C 1861? The Tenth Amendment clearly states, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ If the Constitution does not grant a power to the Congress, it does not have it and it has no more legislative authority in that regard than you or I do.
- brookst 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - eadmund 2y ago
    Yes, and then Article I, Section 8 goes on to explain what counts as the ‘common Defence and general Welfare’ when it enumerates the Congress’s powers. That’s not Sovereign Citizen nonsense — it’s very basic constitutional law. Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example.
    - yakz 2y ago
      The Supreme Court has decided what ‘the general welfare’ means, and it is not limited to the listed powers. This information is not difficult to find, as would be expected given the last 90ish years of spending that is obviously not limited to the list of powers.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      > Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example Rent control should be easy to fit within "general welfare".
      - kristjansson 2y ago
        Congress not only _could_ control rents nationally, congress _has_ controlled rents nationally [1] and those controls survived the review of the court. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Price_Control_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Price_Control_Act_of...
  - SalmonSnarker 2y ago
    > You’re verging into SovCit stuff here. It's a reading of constitutional law that insists that the only thing that matters is what they can shallowly read in their pocket constitution, while totally ignoring most of the constitution itself and any of the surrounding court precedent. :) Eadmund incorrectly notes "The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments", and cites the tenth amendment while asking "What’s the Constitutional basis for that law?" Duh, the appointments clause in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause. :3 > Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers. The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with "broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise" of its more specific authorities. The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices. Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives. The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

sympil 2y ago

Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies. The Constitution is a collection of statements and they collectively have implications. All of Euclidean geometry is based off of 5 statements. That the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say you can have a Department of the Air Force does not imply having one is unconstitutional. Many Christians believe in the holy trinity despite that phrase appearing nowhere in the Bible.