It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA chief: U.S. won't go it alone on manned Mars mission

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Last I checked the boundaries of the US are fixed, while the population is increasing. I would imagine finding suitable places to live off Earth is providing for our common welfare.

Fat chance. It cost $10,000 to send just a pound into space. Other than a very privileged few who could probably afford to vacation every once in a while to space, there isn't going to be any mass immigration or colonization of space any time in the near future if current trends keep up. For starters, there is a thing called special relativity that essentially prohibits practical deep space travel, hence our remaining options are either terraforming planets (which would be unconstutional) or military bases on the moon.


Originally posted by OccamsRazor04Finding a cache of rare minerals that would enable the Govt. to pay down the debt would also help the common welfare.

That is not suppose to be the function of government according to the way our Founding Fathers modelled it. It is up to private industry to mine and profit off of resources, not the government. The only allowed way our government can get rid of the debt is to cut spending and taxes on the upper class to promote job creation and get this economy going.


Originally posted by OccamsRazor04I don't care that you don't want them to do it, or that you think another group should be doing it, the fact is it is constitutional as it DOES provide for our welfare.


According to most constitutional experts, the phrase "to provide for our common welfare" only implies a standing army and not excessive taxation of people or Robin Hood authoritarianism that has given rise to the welfare state. If we were to go by the way you people stretch the statement "to provide for our common welfare", you can justify turn America into a socialist hell-hole.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



That is not suppose to be the function of government according to the way our Founding Fathers modelled it. It is up to private industry to mine and profit off of resources, not the government. The only allowed way our government can get rid of the debt is to cut spending and taxes on the upper class to promote job creation and get this economy going.


Where does it say that in the Constitution?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Where does it say that in the Constitution?


I'll gladly answer that question once you answer where it says in the constitution that it is the role of government to promote science through taxation? If the Founding Fathers truly believed in government funded science, then surely Benjamin Franklin (a renowned scientist) would have set up a scientific institution that was funded by the American taxpayers.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



I'll gladly answer that question once you answer where it says in the constitution that it is the role of government to promote science through taxation? If the Founding Fathers truly believed in government funded science, then surely Benjamin Franklin (a renowned scientist) would have set up a scientific institution that was funded by the American taxpayers.


He didn't need to. He established the Philadelphia Library by public subscription. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson forced the American taxpayers to fund a totally useless scientific expedition:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, where does the Constitution say "the only allowed way our government can get rid of the debt is to cut spending and taxes on the upper class to promote job creation and get this economy going?"



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001



He didn't need to. He established the Philadelphia Library by public subscription. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson forced the American taxpayers to fund a totally useless scientific expedition:

en.wikipedia.org...

One historical example does not set the rule. For all we know, Jefferson consulted the citizenry whether they would be in favor of funding his expedition or he possibly later recanted his position on this but there are no historical evidence to support it. Let's not forget what mainly sparked the revolution in the first place: "taxation without representation". There are clearly a large number of people who don't want their tax dollars to go to NASA, so why extort them for their money in a cause they don't believe in? That, by definition, is "taxation without representation".


Originally posted by DJW001Now, where does the Constitution say "the only allowed way our government can get rid of the debt is to cut spending and taxes on the upper class to promote job creation and get this economy going?"


That is the American way. This country was founded on the principles of capitalism and very limited government. It is not the role of government to conduct expeditions or scientific research that is funded by the American people, seeing as there are Americans who would rather have that money in their pocket or go towards defense. Again, this brings us back to taxation without representation.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



There are clearly a large number of people who don't want their tax dollars to go to NASA, so why extort them for their money in a cause they don't believe in? That, by definition, is "taxation without representation".


There is an even larger number that do not want their tax dollars wasted on useless military projects. Do we really need a giant self propelled mortar in the 21st century? And what about that Osprey, a gigantic fail. There is a huge number that thinks it was wrong to invade Iraq. Not just a waste of their money, but a violation of their moral principles. Talk about taxation without representation!



Now, where does the Constitution say "the only allowed way our government can get rid of the debt is to cut spending and taxes on the upper class to promote job creation and get this economy going?"



That is the American way. This country was founded on the principles of capitalism and very limited government. It is not the role of government to conduct expeditions or scientific research that is funded by the American people, seeing as there are Americans who would rather have that money in their pocket or go towards defense. Again, this brings us back to taxation without representation.


In other words, it is not in the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
There is an even larger number that do not want their tax dollars wasted on useless military projects. Do we really need a giant self propelled mortar in the 21st century? And what about that Osprey, a gigantic fail. There is a huge number that thinks it was wrong to invade Iraq. Not just a waste of their money, but a violation of their moral principles. Talk about taxation without representation!


Except military projects are actually defined roles by the government according to the constitution, so that is a moot point. And yes, we really do need all the protection we can get. I'd rather spend that $2.5 billion on state of the art solid state military lasers rather than some useless Rover.





Originally posted by DJW001In other words, it is not in the Constitution.


Taxation without representation. The only justified taxation by the government is for protection (military). Everything else (welfare, government agencies not involved in military, etc etc) are completely unconstitutional.
edit on 9-8-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



Taxation without representation. The only justified taxation by the government is for protection (military). Everything else (welfare, government agencies not involved in military, etc etc) are completely unconstitutional.


Where does it say that in the Constitution?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
If the Founding Fathers truly believed in government funded science, then surely Benjamin Franklin (a renowned scientist) would have set up a scientific institution that was funded by the American taxpayers.


No, surely he would not. Can you show me where he tried and failed? Otherwise you have no point.


For all we know, Jefferson consulted the citizenry whether they would be in favor of funding his expedition or he possibly later recanted his position on this


For all we know Jefferson claimed Planet X in the name of the USA. It's easy to say for all we know when you don't offer any evidence. It also makes it meaningless.


Let's not forget what mainly sparked the revolution in the first place: "taxation without representation".


So you are saying those who pay taxes have no Representative? Or are you saying the Representative does not follow the wishes of his people. If you claim the former I am amazed at such a claim and demand proof. If you claim the latter the answer is to vote someone else in. Either way you have representation even if you do not pay taxes, so quite a stupid point to make. I keep hearing you say things, I just don't hear you back any of it up.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
No, surely he would not. Can you show me where he tried and failed? Otherwise you have no point.

I do have a point, and you saying I don't doesn't change that fact. In his wisdom, if he truly supported the idea of science funded by the American taxpayer, then surely he would have set up some form of institution to fund his scientific endeavours or science in general? Why is it you people look to one and only one historical precedence of Jefferson to justify NASA but yet ignore the Benjamin Franklin the scientist? He strongly believed in science, but that it should be funded by the private sector and funded his various experiments and research out of his own pocket, and not that of the American taxpayer.


Originally posted by OccamsRazor04For all we know Jefferson claimed Planet X in the name of the USA. It's easy to say for all we know when you don't offer any evidence. It also makes it meaningless.


Exceptions do not suddenly become the rule.




Originally posted by OccamsRazor04So you are saying those who pay taxes have no Representative? Or are you saying the Representative does not follow the wishes of his people. If you claim the former I am amazed at such a claim and demand proof. If you claim the latter the answer is to vote someone else in. Either way you have representation even if you do not pay taxes, so quite a stupid point to make. I keep hearing you say things, I just don't hear you back any of it up.


Evidence? Are you blind? All one needs is to look to the many failed promises of the current president. Did he bring all of our troops home? Did he stick to his promise to staying out of all conflicts? Getting the economy back on track? Did he close down Gitmo? This president stuck to so many few of his promises and that's just one of the many politicians screwing up our country. Of course, that discussion is for another thread.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


So do you finally admit that what you said about NASA being "unconstitutional" was just plain wrong?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


You do know a lot of the NASA equipment, including some critical parts, are British designed, and often built right?

There is also a lot of contributions from Europe, Canada, China etc, heck, if it wasn't for Nazi Germany, America wouldn't be this far along.

The exploration of space is what could, and should, bring humanity together, of course everyone should be involved, besides, you can't beat British engineering



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001So do you finally admit that what you said about NASA being "unconstitutional" was just plain wrong?


I am not going to admit to something that is blatantly false. As I've said again, only the military should be funded by the nation and through the federal government. Everything else is completely unconstitutional and should be handled at the state level, and I cite the 10th ammendment of the Constitution:
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.

Ergo, the federal government has no right at all to tax the nation as a whole to fund this bloated bureaucracy. If certain states want to fund their own space agencies with the taxes of their residents, then that is up to them.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 



I am not going to admit to something that is blatantly false. As I've said again, only the military should be funded by the nation and through the federal government. Everything else is completely unconstitutional and should be handled at the state level, and I cite the 10th ammendment of the Constitution:
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.

Ergo, the federal government has no right at all to tax the nation as a whole to fund this bloated bureaucracy. If certain states want to fund their own space agencies with the taxes of their residents, then that is up to them.


But the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to tax citizens "to provide for the general welfare." It's right there at the very top. If you object to tax money being used for the postal service and roads, fine. But don't say they are "unconstitutional," even though they have nothing to do with defense. You are entitled to your opinion, but please, please don't pretend that everything you don't like is "unconstitutional." It is a travesty.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


But the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to tax citizens "to provide for the general welfare."


And most constitutional experts interpret that as protection and national security, and their interpretation is what matters at the end of the day. If some people can interpret that as they wanted to, America could be turned into the same socialist cesspit that the Founding Fathers were trying to gain independence from in the first place. Are you really trying to imply that the Founding Fathers, who spent such time and effort, in creating one of the most greatest documents in history just to say "the government has all the authority to do as it sees fit if it provides for the general welfare"?


Originally posted by DJW001It's right there at the very top. If you object to tax money being used for the postal service and roads, fine. But don't say they are "unconstitutional," even though they have nothing to do with defense. You are entitled to your opinion, but please, please don't pretend that everything you don't like is "unconstitutional." It is a travesty.


The simple fact of the matter is that it is unconstitutional. Why do you have such a problem with that? If certain states want to tax their residents for a space program, that's their prerogative and you can go and fund their space program all you like. However, the only power given to the federal government by the constitution is that of protection and national security. Everything else should be handled at the state level.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 




But the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to tax citizens "to provide for the general welfare."



And most constitutional experts interpret that as protection and national security, and their interpretation is what matters at the end of the day.


If that's the case, why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled along those lines?


If some people can interpret that as they wanted to, America could be turned into the same socialist cesspit that the Founding Fathers were trying to gain independence from in the first place.


Did you just call the British Empire at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution a "socialist cesspit?" Some research on your part is in order.


Are you really trying to imply that the Founding Fathers, who spent such time and effort, in creating one of the most greatest documents in history just to say "the government has all the authority to do as it sees fit if it provides for the general welfare"?


Yes, within the limits set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can, for example, seize your property. They don't even need to tell you why. They do have to pay you for it, though.



It's right there at the very top. If you object to tax money being used for the postal service and roads, fine. But don't say they are "unconstitutional," even though they have nothing to do with defense. You are entitled to your opinion, but please, please don't pretend that everything you don't like is "unconstitutional." It is a travesty.



The simple fact of the matter is that it is unconstitutional. Why do you have such a problem with that? If certain states want to tax their residents for a space program, that's their prerogative and you can go and fund their space program all you like. However, the only power given to the federal government by the constitution is that of protection and national security. Everything else should be handled at the state level.


Simply wrong. The Constitution specifies, for example, that members of Congress will be paid out of the national treasury. That is a use of taxpayer money for something other than defense. That is a case of tax money being used for administration or management. It also specifically mentions the Post Office and roads. These are not for defense, but to promote commerce. As I said, you can object to any use of your money by the Federal Government, but that does not make it unconstitutional.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
If that's the case, why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled along those lines?

Might have something to do with the fact that this country is no longer as free and glorious as it used to be, and authoritarian ideologies seem to be becoming more popular. One prime example is the concept of welfare. In the early days of America, such a concept would have been found as completely unacceptable and unconstitutional. Yet, today it seen as part of a fundamental role of government.



Originally posted by DJW001Yes, within the limits set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can, for example, seize your property. They don't even need to tell you why. They do have to pay you for it, though.


There is a difference between the protocols of seizing an individual's property and the notion of taxation without representation. In most cases (correct me if I'm wrong, there may be some new anti-freedom bill that might prohibit it), I can protest the seizing of my property and take the government to trial if I have a strong case. However, I cannot under any circumstance protest the unconstitutional funding of NASA through my tax dollars and the only way I can go about changing that is voting for officials who would work towards that goal.



Originally posted by DJW001Simply wrong. The Constitution specifies, for example, that members of Congress will be paid out of the national treasury. That is a use of taxpayer money for something other than defense. That is a case of tax money being used for administration or management. It also specifically mentions the Post Office and roads. These are not for defense, but to promote commerce. As I said, you can object to any use of your money by the Federal Government, but that does not make it unconstitutional.


Once again, your understanding of the constitution is uninformed. Roads and post offices are funded at the local and state level, not the federal level. As for the salary of politicians, now you're nitpicking. The role of the federal government, according to the constitution and how the Founding Fathers envisioned it, is to protect the country through the military and resolve state issues and disputes. Everything else should be handled at the state level and local levels.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 




If that's the case, why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled along those lines?


Might have something to do with the fact that this country is no longer as free and glorious as it used to be, and authoritarian ideologies seem to be becoming more popular. One prime example is the concept of welfare. In the early days of America, such a concept would have been found as completely unacceptable and unconstitutional. Yet, today it seen as part of a fundamental role of government.


No, it has nothing to do with not being as glorious or free. The document says what it says. I agree that the Founders probably thought of welfare, as we use the term today, as charity. Charity is a function more suited to religious establishments than government. Nevertheless, 80 years ago the Supreme Court decided that social welfare programs were constitutional.




Yes, within the limits set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can, for example, seize your property. They don't even need to tell you why. They do have to pay you for it, though.



There is a difference between the protocols of seizing an individual's property and the notion of taxation without representation. In most cases (correct me if I'm wrong, there may be some new anti-freedom bill that might prohibit it), I can protest the seizing of my property and take the government to trial if I have a strong case. However, I cannot under any circumstance protest the unconstitutional funding of NASA through my tax dollars and the only way I can go about changing that is voting for officials who would work towards that goal.


You are free to protest government spending any way you wish. You are doing it now, and no-one is breaking down your door.




Simply wrong. The Constitution specifies, for example, that members of Congress will be paid out of the national treasury. That is a use of taxpayer money for something other than defense. That is a case of tax money being used for administration or management. It also specifically mentions the Post Office and roads. These are not for defense, but to promote commerce. As I said, you can object to any use of your money by the Federal Government, but that does not make it unconstitutional.



Once again, your understanding of the constitution is uninformed. Roads and post offices are funded at the local and state level, not the federal level. As for the salary of politicians, now you're nitpicking. The role of the federal government, according to the constitution and how the Founding Fathers envisioned it, is to protect the country through the military and resolve state issues and disputes. Everything else should be handled at the state level and local levels.



To establish Post Offices and post Roads;


Section 8, of course.

I urge you to actually read the Constitution. It says what it says, not what you want it to say.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Nevertheless, 80 years ago the Supreme Court decided that social welfare programs were constitutional.

Which is a testament to how authoritarian this country is becoming by using stretching loopholes to their legal limit and allowing for a policy that defines a welfare state.





Originally posted by DJW001You are free to protest government spending any way you wish. You are doing it now, and no-one is breaking down your door.

I can sue the government for seizing my property, even if I am more likely to lose. However, I can never sue for compensation of my tax dollars used to fund NASA. I simply don't have that right.








Originally posted by DJW001I urge you to actually read the Constitution. It says what it says, not what you want it to say.


So, if you want to play that way, then how come I don't see it explicitly state the establishment of scientific government agencies? Clearly, if the Founding Fathers believed in funding science through the federal government, surely they would have mentioned something about it in the constitution?

Since it's not explicitly stated in the constitution, and the 10th ammendment clearly prohibits the federal government from any power not granted to it by the constitution, then the only logical conclusion is that a scientific organization like NASA should be funded at the state level and is unconstitutional as a federal agency.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


Just read the Constitution, please.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join