In article <jqCdnVRclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net>,

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c489fa8685b40e8989694@news.individual.net:

In article <YK-dnUEea5sOTkPcRVn-3Q@rcn.net>,

Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:4jktt0l8e081lu5i63egf5bmr72chvnsbv@4ax.com:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:59:19 -0600, Gactimus <

Which is good, since it is unconstitutional to spend money on
research.

Cite?

The Constitution is very specific on what Congress can spend money
on. Reseach is not one of them.

False. The constitution leaves the issue up to congress as to how
they appropriate spending bills. Since the constitution does not
specifically forbid research and it is necessary and proper to
advance other causes, it is certainly constitutional.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly defined the powers
of Congress for which they are permitted to lawfully appropriate money
from the Treasury.

Firstly, Article I, Section 8 does allow congress to provide for the
"common Defense and general Welfare". Secondly, it does not
specifically say how monies raised by taxation or borrowing have to be
used. Thirdly, it does allow congress "To promote the progress of
science and useful arts" and there are a variety of implied ways that
congress can interpret how to "secure" that.

There are also implied powers to appropriate where it would advance the
other duties and objectives of the federal government, as medical
research would on many authorized fronts. You know that you don't have
a leg to stand on here.

Spending it on research is not one of those powers.

It doesn't have to be specifically enumerated. The constitution doesn't
say that congress can authorize money to go to the moon or mars either.
Are you saying that Bush's plans to do so are therefore
unconstitutional?

In fact, similar issues have come up before Congress previously:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects
of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

First off, the constitution, and specifically Article I, section 8, does
allow for congress to provide for the "defense and general welfare" .

In the case of madison, he was talking about foreign nationals, rather
than citizens, making the example moot for the purposes of this type of
research. Although it should certainly be noted that even the most
rabid repugs in congress don't object to all foreign aid granted by
congress ever year

and therefore it's likely that they would disagree with madison's
objection here as well. BTW, do you support everything Madison said, or
only the parts which you imagine advance your agenda? For example,
madison also said,

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be
safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against. foreign
danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the
Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext
of defending, have enslaved the people..."

That describes the tyranny of Bush and the neocons perfectly.

(on the Congressional proposal on the appropriation of $15,000 to
assist some French refugees)

So I suppose that $350 million bush wants to donate to tsunami relief is
unconstitutional.