Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We owe the integrated ciruit and the all solid state electronics to the US government need to make small, light weight rugged (To with stand the flight into space on an ICBM) electronics, computers and guidiance systems for weapons. The technology to make them and create them in the first place largely originated at the Sandia Corp.(Now called the Sandia National Laboratory. ) run by AT&T Bell Telephone.
Laboratories. It cost mucho dinarios and a lot of hard work to take the nuclear weapons from Los Alamos or Livermore and package them so they would get to where they had to go in one piece. This was what was donew at Sandia. Arpanet was originally designed to solve the very real problem of keeping communications channels open in the battle environment expected during nuclear war. A lot of the work at IBM, Bell labs, BBS, Xerox Parcd, TI, EE&G were bankrolled by Uncle Sugar.
Perhaps so but the PC revolution of the late 70's/early 80's was all hobbyist driven, not gov't driven. The first PC was the Altair, built by Ed Roberts and Forest Mims. They were Air Force employees, but built the Altair not in gov't offices but in their garage.
Then came the TRS-80, the Apple, the Commodore Pet, the Compucolor, etc. All hobbyists and entrepeneurs, not government. Again, the gov't gave us COBOL.
Congress shall have the power . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
There is no constitutional power for the Government to fund research.
Congress shall have the power . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
There is no constitutional power for the Government to fund research.
So . . . It's unconstitutional!
There is something called the taxing and spending clause you know. Basically Congress can chose to spend on the general welfare however it likes so long is doing so is not overly coercive.
There is something called the taxing and spending clause you know. Basically Congress can chose to spend on the general welfare however it likes so long is doing so is not overly coercive.
Are you able to overcome specific enumeration with it?
Especially where the Government acts as a competitor to a specific enumerated power of Congress?
More specifically the paragraph next to the number 207 and onward.
Not really.
I am arguing with you the direct competition of a specific enumeration versus a non-specific (vague) section of the constitution. The examples you point to are not as clearly defined an opposition.
Specific (narrow) always beats vague (broad). Course, most of my knowledge on that relates to patent claims.
I have a bunch of patents of which claims I argued and was granted by the USPTO. I've had some pretty broad claims granted to me.
The immense size and power of the Government of the United States ought not obscure its fundamental character. It remains a Government of enumerated powers. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819).
The immense size and power of the Government of the United States ought not obscure its fundamental character. It remains a Government of enumerated powers. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819).
Yes really,
"The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 66 (1936), where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined that "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields," id., at 65, may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds."
South Dakota v. Dole see the link in post #26.
Even your case, McCulloch, resolves that implied powers exist.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-02-2013 at 10:07 PM..
I am arguing with you the direct competition of a specific enumeration versus a non-specific (vague) section of the constitution. The examples you point to are not as clearly defined an opposition.
Actually they are more defined in opposition due to the 21st amendment. That was what O'Connor's dissent was about. Either way, federal research funding is not unconstitutional. What makes it even more fun is that in her dissent she cites exactly the same line about McCulloch as you do. Unfortunately for your argument 7 justices disagreed which is why she was writing a dissent.
Sure, I think a fair bit of the tech world research has occurred outside of the government, or without significant government funding.
However, if you look at things like biology, biochemistry, ecology, oceanography, medicine, geology, cosmology, seismology, climatology, physics, geophysics, physiology, meteorogy, and most other forms of scientific research, you will find that publically-funded scientists were central in the discoveries. It is a major part of what separates the USA, N. Europe, and Japan, from, say, Burma.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
