How are NASA, NSF, NIH, NOAA, USGS legally justified as constitutional?

[Blue3]

How are NASA, NOAA, USGS, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and others like them, legally justified as constitutional?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[brucejoel99]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. If nothing else, all of those agencies very much help to promote the health, safety, morals, & well-being of the people (i.e. the purpose of the General Welfare clause) governed under our Constitution in one way or another.

Not to mention, such agencies would surely be considered constitutional by way of the Necessary & Proper clause, even if the General Welfare clause didn't already apply.

[MarkD]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. If nothing else, all of those agencies very much help to promote the health, safety, morals, & well-being of the people (i.e. the purpose of the General Welfare clause) governed under our Constitution in one way or another.

Not to mention, such agencies would surely be considered constitutional by way of the Necessary & Proper clause, even if the General Welfare clause didn't already apply.

Be careful about morals legislation. The Supreme Court might strike down those laws in the name of the Due Process Clause if the Justices don't like the law. See Lawrence v. Texas.

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not add powers to the federal government, it only reinforces the powers in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[brucejoel99]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. If nothing else, all of those agencies very much help to promote the health, safety, morals, & well-being of the people (i.e. the purpose of the General Welfare clause) governed under our Constitution in one way or another.

Not to mention, such agencies would surely be considered constitutional by way of the Necessary & Proper clause, even if the General Welfare clause didn't already apply.

Be careful about morals legislation. The Supreme Court might strike down those laws in the name of the Due Process Clause if the Justices don't like the law. See Lawrence v. Texas.

All legislation is moral. The sooner we recognize this fact, the better. "You can't legislate morality" is just a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law & regulation that's proposed, passed, & enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You can't not legislate morality.

It's of course true that some laws will be better conceived than others, & many may fail entirely to achieve their purpose. But that they have a purpose, & that the purpose includes at least an implicit moral element, is incontrovertible. One need only ask of any law or action of government, "What is the law for?" The answer at some point will include a conception of what's good for the community in which the law holds. The inversion of the question makes the point even more clearly. What would provide a rationale for a law or governmental action apart from a moral purpose?

The "good" here in question isn't merely the product of passing fads or idiosyncratic preferences. When something is wrong, it's not wrong merely b/c it offends somebody's personal taste. The governing authority's power to pass & enforce laws takes account of the beastly side of human nature while holding that some wrongs are so fundamental that they demand a robust & coercive response. If there are truly deeds that are gravely morally wrong, then it follows that there must be an authority established to command that such deeds be avoided & to punish the transgressors who commit them.

To legislate is to legislate morality. One can no more avoid legislating morality than one can speak without syntax. One can't sever morality from the law. Even partisans of the most spartan libertarian conception of the state would themselves employ state power to enforce their vision of the common good. Given this understanding, the term "morals legislation" is, strictly speaking, redundant. The real question is not whether the political community will legislate morality; the question is which vision of morality will be enforced & by what sort of government.

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not add powers to the federal government, it only reinforces the powers in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution talks about armies & navies. It doesn't say air force, but I'd be very loath to think that you can't have an Air Force. And for similar reasons, I'd be very loath to think you can't have NASA &/or space policy, even without the General Welfare Clause.

Marshall basically made just this argument in McCulloch v. Maryland, b/c there's no bank clause of the Constitution, & there's no corporation clause of the Constitution, yet he said Congress surely has power to create a national bank, to create a corporation, & he didn't point to a specific clause. He actually didn't even have to rest on the Necessary & Proper Clause or any other specific clause, either. He basically said it was part of the basic purpose of the federal government, most important of which is national defense, & he said properly that a bank was very useful for our national defense to move money around from north to south, east to west, to make sure that the army got paid on site, on time, an ATM argument for broad federal power. And he was at Valley Forge. He understood national security. So first & foremost, w/ the Constitution as a national security document, Congress & the federal government have broad national security powers, and NASA is just as well a part of that.

[MarkD]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. If nothing else, all of those agencies very much help to promote the health, safety, morals, & well-being of the people (i.e. the purpose of the General Welfare clause) governed under our Constitution in one way or another.

Not to mention, such agencies would surely be considered constitutional by way of the Necessary & Proper clause, even if the General Welfare clause didn't already apply.

Be careful about morals legislation. The Supreme Court might strike down those laws in the name of the Due Process Clause if the Justices don't like the law. See Lawrence v. Texas.

All legislation is moral. The sooner we recognize this fact, the better. "You can't legislate morality" is just a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law & regulation that's proposed, passed, & enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You can't not legislate morality.

It's of course true that some laws will be better conceived than others, & many may fail entirely to achieve their purpose. But that they have a purpose, & that the purpose includes at least an implicit moral element, is incontrovertible. One need only ask of any law or action of government, "What is the law for?" The answer at some point will include a conception of what's good for the community in which the law holds. The inversion of the question makes the point even more clearly. What would provide a rationale for a law or governmental action apart from a moral purpose?

The "good" here in question isn't merely the product of passing fads or idiosyncratic preferences. When something is wrong, it's not wrong merely b/c it offends somebody's personal taste. The governing authority's power to pass & enforce laws takes account of the beastly side of human nature while holding that some wrongs are so fundamental that they demand a robust & coercive response. If there are truly deeds that are gravely morally wrong, then it follows that there must be an authority established to command that such deeds be avoided & to punish the transgressors who commit them.

To legislate is to legislate morality. One can no more avoid legislating morality than one can speak without syntax. One can't sever morality from the law. Even partisans of the most spartan libertarian conception of the state would themselves employ state power to enforce their vision of the common good. Given this understanding, the term "morals legislation" is, strictly speaking, redundant. The real question is not whether the political community will legislate morality; the question is which vision of morality will be enforced & by what sort of government.

Do you know how much like Robert Bork you sound?
Anyway, you haven't addressed Lawrence v. Texas. This is what it says near the end:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Court, in Lawrence was finding a law banning "sodomy" to be a violation of the Due Process Clause -- substantive due process. With the above quote, they were saying that we can't legislate morality.

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not add powers to the federal government, it only reinforces the powers in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution talks about armies & navies. It doesn't say air force, but I'd be very loath to think that you can't have an Air Force. And for similar reasons, I'd be very loath to think you can't have NASA &/or space policy, even without the General Welfare Clause.

Marshall basically made just this argument in McCulloch v. Maryland, b/c there's no bank clause of the Constitution, & there's no corporation clause of the Constitution, yet he said Congress surely has power to create a national bank, to create a corporation, & he didn't point to a specific clause. He actually didn't even have to rest on the Necessary & Proper Clause or any other specific clause, either. He basically said it was part of the basic purpose of the federal government, most important of which is national defense, & he said properly that a bank was very useful for our national defense to move money around from north to south, east to west, to make sure that the army got paid on site, on time, an ATM argument for broad federal power. And he was at Valley Forge. He understood national security. So first & foremost, w/ the Constitution as a national security document, Congress & the federal government have broad national security powers, and NASA is just as well a part of that.

Your assertion that the Court did not rest the federal power to create a national bank on any specific clause surprises me. I was under the impression -- having not read the opinion -- that the Court was relying on the Commerce Clause to justify the national bank.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, it based its decision on Congress' power to tax, borrow, and spend. Since having a nationally chartered bank was one way for Congress to manage that, then under the Court's interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause it could do that despite the lack of specific authority to charter a bank.

[brucejoel99]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. If nothing else, all of those agencies very much help to promote the health, safety, morals, & well-being of the people (i.e. the purpose of the General Welfare clause) governed under our Constitution in one way or another.

Not to mention, such agencies would surely be considered constitutional by way of the Necessary & Proper clause, even if the General Welfare clause didn't already apply.

Be careful about morals legislation. The Supreme Court might strike down those laws in the name of the Due Process Clause if the Justices don't like the law. See Lawrence v. Texas.

All legislation is moral. The sooner we recognize this fact, the better. "You can't legislate morality" is just a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law & regulation that's proposed, passed, & enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You can't not legislate morality.

It's of course true that some laws will be better conceived than others, & many may fail entirely to achieve their purpose. But that they have a purpose, & that the purpose includes at least an implicit moral element, is incontrovertible. One need only ask of any law or action of government, "What is the law for?" The answer at some point will include a conception of what's good for the community in which the law holds. The inversion of the question makes the point even more clearly. What would provide a rationale for a law or governmental action apart from a moral purpose?

The "good" here in question isn't merely the product of passing fads or idiosyncratic preferences. When something is wrong, it's not wrong merely b/c it offends somebody's personal taste. The governing authority's power to pass & enforce laws takes account of the beastly side of human nature while holding that some wrongs are so fundamental that they demand a robust & coercive response. If there are truly deeds that are gravely morally wrong, then it follows that there must be an authority established to command that such deeds be avoided & to punish the transgressors who commit them.

To legislate is to legislate morality. One can no more avoid legislating morality than one can speak without syntax. One can't sever morality from the law. Even partisans of the most spartan libertarian conception of the state would themselves employ state power to enforce their vision of the common good. Given this understanding, the term "morals legislation" is, strictly speaking, redundant. The real question is not whether the political community will legislate morality; the question is which vision of morality will be enforced & by what sort of government.

Do you know how much like Robert Bork you sound?

LOL I'm sorry I sound like Bork, that's just my point of view; I can assure you, however, that my judicial philosophy is nothing like his.

Anyway, you haven't addressed Lawrence v. Texas. This is what it says near the end:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Court, in Lawrence was finding a law banning "sodomy" to be a violation of the Due Process Clause -- substantive due process. With the above quote, they were saying that we can't legislate morality.

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not add powers to the federal government, it only reinforces the powers in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution talks about armies & navies. It doesn't say air force, but I'd be very loath to think that you can't have an Air Force. And for similar reasons, I'd be very loath to think you can't have NASA &/or space policy, even without the General Welfare Clause.

Marshall basically made just this argument in McCulloch v. Maryland, b/c there's no bank clause of the Constitution, & there's no corporation clause of the Constitution, yet he said Congress surely has power to create a national bank, to create a corporation, & he didn't point to a specific clause. He actually didn't even have to rest on the Necessary & Proper Clause or any other specific clause, either. He basically said it was part of the basic purpose of the federal government, most important of which is national defense, & he said properly that a bank was very useful for our national defense to move money around from north to south, east to west, to make sure that the army got paid on site, on time, an ATM argument for broad federal power. And he was at Valley Forge. He understood national security. So first & foremost, w/ the Constitution as a national security document, Congress & the federal government have broad national security powers, and NASA is just as well a part of that.

Your assertion that the Court did not rest the federal power to create a national bank on any specific clause surprises me. I was under the impression -- having not read the opinion -- that the Court was relying on the Commerce Clause to justify the national bank.

In the opinion, Marshall cited the scope of congressional powers under Article I, broadly describing Congress' authority.

[Storebought]

An 'academy of sciences' was something Ben Franklin proposed in colonial times, so the desire to establish, or at least fund, national institutions of research predates anything written in the Constitution. Even the Articles of Confederation establishes the legal basis for Congress to fund basic research in weights and measures -- NIST -- to standardize the coins traded between its individual states.

What benefit does the US have in not being able to maintain its own meters and kilograms, or track the progression of a disease, or to predict the paths of hurricanes? It's not like the private sector will pick up the slack, considering that Bell Labs was sold off some twenty years ago and then shut its basic research facilities because physics just wasn't profitable.

[MarkD]

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not add powers to the federal government, it only reinforces the powers in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution talks about armies & navies. It doesn't say air force, but I'd be very loath to think that you can't have an Air Force. And for similar reasons, I'd be very loath to think you can't have NASA &/or space policy, even without the General Welfare Clause.

Marshall basically made just this argument in McCulloch v. Maryland, b/c there's no bank clause of the Constitution, & there's no corporation clause of the Constitution, yet he said Congress surely has power to create a national bank, to create a corporation, & he didn't point to a specific clause. He actually didn't even have to rest on the Necessary & Proper Clause or any other specific clause, either. He basically said it was part of the basic purpose of the federal government, most important of which is national defense, & he said properly that a bank was very useful for our national defense to move money around from north to south, east to west, to make sure that the army got paid on site, on time, an ATM argument for broad federal power. And he was at Valley Forge. He understood national security. So first & foremost, w/ the Constitution as a national security document, Congress & the federal government have broad national security powers, and NASA is just as well a part of that.

Your assertion that the Court did not rest the federal power to create a national bank on any specific clause surprises me. I was under the impression -- having not read the opinion -- that the Court was relying on the Commerce Clause to justify the national bank.

In the opinion, Marshall cited the scope of congressional powers under Article I, broadly describing Congress' authority.

True Federalist disagrees with you, in the preceding comment, and claims that they did cite a specific power to adopt the National Bank. I would be extremely disappointed in John Marshall if he didn't cite a specific empowering clause in the Constitution to justify some legislation that Congress has passed. Interpreting the Commerce Clause broadly is one thing; citing Congress's power to tax, borrow, and spend is one thing; but citing no particular clause in the Constitution and saying that Congress's power to legislate is broad clearly contradicts the principles of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Edited only to fix the formatting of the quote - TF