In general, the founding fathers agreed free enterprise to be the best depository in the advancement of science, and intentionally sought to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by granting a limited power to Congress to protect the work of authors and inventors by issuing patents and copyrights only!
Madison's Notes on the convention of 1787 reveals that Charles Pinckney, on August 18th during the federal convention, proposed a power to be vested in Congress "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences", but this proposal, as many other proposals, was rejected by the Convention, and the only power agreed upon by the Framers and Ratifiers relating to the advancement of science, was the limited power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How? "... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
And why not give power to Congress to award taxpayer money to private individuals in the promotion of science and useful Arts? The answer to this question was eloquently stated on the floor of the House on February 7th, 1792 by Representative John Page:
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers." see Annals of Congress Feb 1792 Rep Page
So, here we have a record of the Founders of our great country, which addresses the question of whether Congress shall have power to subsidize and grant preferences in the advancement of science, and the record shows, in crystal clear language, the advancement of science was intentionally left to the free enterprise system without Congress being authorized to determine the winners and losers of taxpayer revenue grants.
In conclusion, the practice of today's Congress subsidizing and granting financial preferences to selected individuals and groups of individuals [including faith based institutions], is not only un-constitutional and a misappropriation of federal revenue, which happens to be a criminal offense, but such a power, when exercised by folks in government, is a total violation of personal property rights which our Constitution was designed to protect. The importance of personal property rights was pointed out on February 3, 1792, by Rep. Giles, speaking before the House of Representatives:
"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." [Annals of Congress, Feb 3 1792 Rep Giles
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.
Brandon9000 wrote:The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.
Nice point, well stated.
I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.
Brandon9000 wrote:I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.
Brandon, do you know the process by which these cells are harvested?
They are by products of in vitro fertilization, which enables parents who formerly could not have children to have them. At NO time did either the egg or the sperm combo ever see the inside of the mother's womb..
In the process of in vitro fertilization, several egg-sperm combos are united in petri dishes,and the best looking embryo gets implanted into the mother. The other successful looking embryos are frozen for a while in case the parents want another child, and then finally thrown out in the trash-or donated for stem cell research.
So that's the deal-these stem cells are taken from leftovers from the in vitro process which are slated to get thrown out in the garbage. Exactly how you think using these scheduled-for-the-scrap-heap cells to cure diseases and extend lives can be immoral is difficult to understand.
I would say Frist is the first Republican to show a bit of good sense in quite a while.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in...... the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. "Federalist Paper No. 45
"Federalist Paper No. 45
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.
I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.
Regards,
JWK
ACRS
john w k wrote:The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in...... the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. "Federalist Paper No. 45
There are those who feel that enabling millions to avoid the dementia of Alzheimer's or the debility of Parkinson's contribute mightily to the "improvement and prosperity of the State".
There are even those who feel that alleviate either would "promote the general welfare".
john w k wrote:Regards,
JWK
ACRS
Are we supposed to know what ACRS stands for?
Accelerated Cost Recovery System?
Australian Coral Reef Society?
Asian Counseling and Referral Service?
Australian Cabler Registration Service?
Brandon9000 wrote:The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.
I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.
Sorry, but your opinion is not supported by the mountain of evidence to the contrary!
NEWS FLASH !
TN Senator Bill Frist Supports Embryo Stem Cell Research:
“July 18, 2001—Nashville, TN: Tennessee Senator Bill Frist today announced his support for embryo stem cell research, including tax payer funding of the destructive practice.”
Senator Frist supports using the force of government to finance stem cell research?
And by what constitutional authority does Senator Frist rely upon to use the force of government in such a manner?
Quote:
In general, the founding fathers agreed free enterprise to be the best depository in the advancement of science, and intentionally sought to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by granting a limited power to Congress to protect the work of authors and inventors by issuing patents and copyrights only!
Madison's Notes on the convention of 1787 reveals that Charles Pinckney, on August 18th during the federal convention, proposed a power to be vested in Congress "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences", but this proposal, as many other proposals, was rejected by the Convention, and the only power agreed upon by the Framers and Ratifiers relating to the advancement of science, was the limited power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How? "... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
And why not give power to Congress to award taxpayer money to private individuals in the promotion of science and useful Arts? The answer to this question was eloquently stated on the floor of the House on February 7th, 1792 by Representative John Page:
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers." see Annals of Congress Feb 1792 Rep Page
So, here we have a record of the Founders of our great country, which addresses the question of whether Congress shall have power to subsidize and grant preferences in the advancement of science, and the record shows, in crystal clear language, the advancement of science was intentionally left to the free enterprise system without Congress being authorized to determine the winners and losers of taxpayer revenue grants.
In conclusion, the practice of today's Congress subsidizing and granting financial preferences to selected individuals and groups of individuals [including faith based institutions], is not only un-constitutional and a misappropriation of federal revenue, which happens to be a criminal offense, but such a power, when exercised by folks in government, is a total violation of personal property rights which our Constitution was designed to protect. The importance of personal property rights was pointed out on February 3, 1792, by Rep. Giles, speaking before the House of Representatives:
"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." [Annals of Congress, Feb 3 1792 Rep Giles
For the complete article see:
Stem Cell Research Funding and Free Enterprise
The Frist plan appears to be nothing more than a plan to create a new government office and dole out money from the public treasury to the friends of big government and Frist‘s friends involved in the medical industrial complex!
“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence
Regards,
JWK
ACRS
So, according to you, NASA must be abolished?
The federal government appropriates funding for a multitude of things such as state highway construction, school lunches, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, nuclear research, etc. The funding ship sailed a long time ago...
