A GREAT gift!! (Evolution)
The Dover evolution court case has ended and with a bang (here)! The judge made a broad and elaborate opinion on his ruling that will have national implications. The exerts I have read from the opinion sound like they could have come from me! Now this is a gift I won't forget. Thank you John Jones!!
Now the Dover institute and other morons will try and rephrase the fight as an academic freedom debate. This is a clever tactic by the morons since it is plausible in the public square. As is obvious to us, it's a ridiculous argument since there is no published paper on ID. Well, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." For now we celebrate!
Now the Dover institute and other morons will try and rephrase the fight as an academic freedom debate. This is a clever tactic by the morons since it is plausible in the public square. As is obvious to us, it's a ridiculous argument since there is no published paper on ID. Well, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." For now we celebrate!
posted by Eddie | 6:27 PM
9 Comments:
thanks god!!!
(just kidding)
lol!
OK, intelligent design is a dumb idea, but it's not any more unconstitutional than the federal government setting school curriculums in the first place. The constitution clearly says that the federal government has only those powers that are specifically granted to it in 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."
You are right, except you don't mention that the states don't have to take the money. If they don't they don't have to abide by the Fed's rules. But each state still must abide by the constitution and so the teaching of a religious doctrine as something else (science in this case) using federal money is unconstitutional. Remember there are plenty of private schools in the US that teach creationism and other nonsense. The federal gov doesn't have the consitutional right to teach, but it isn't prohibited either, so through electrons people have decided they want a public school system. If they don't want one they mearly have to elect people who will dissasemble it, which is perfectly legal since it isn't in the consitution (unlike say the judiciary).
Sure, they don't have to take the money. But the government taxes the people and then only gives back the money (after expenses) if they use it for certain purposes. There's no diffrence between that and fining all people who don't go to government-approved schools.
"The federal gov doesn't have the consitutional right to teach, but it isn't prohibited either"
See what I just posted before. The federal government is prohibited from doing anything that it's not specifically allowed to do in the constitution. When they wanted to ban alcohol during the prohibition, they had to pass a constitutional amendment to give the federal government that power. These days, that whole issue is gone because the federal government does everything as part of the "regulating inter-state commerce" clause -- since that's one of things the constitution specifically allows it to do. Since they've decided that anything (including school curriculums) can theoretically affect inter-state commerce, the constitution is basically ignored.
"There's no diffrence between that and fining all people who don't go to government-approved schools."
Good point. You are right. If everyone is taxed for it everyone should have access to it.
As for the powers of the fed you are also right. The framing of the powers has changed just like the fact that congress is the only branch allowed to go to war yet the executive has sent troups to almost all the the US's foreign "missions." The problem is the people have not pushed for their leaders to relinquish power, and no one will do it unless pressed.
But in the current state of affairs it is still hopeful that they won't teach moronic mythologies in science class.
What a difference language makes. The president didn't need congress' permission because it was a "police action" and not a war.
Remember how in Orwell's 1984 the government always had a permanent war going on? That gave the excuse they needed for anything they wanted, and they made sure the war was unwinnable so the excuses would always be available. The war with Eurasia or Oceania has now been replaced by the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism.
How dare you demand your freedoms? Can't you see there's a war going on? You're not one of the terrorists are you? Whose side are you on anyway?
When I read 1984 (2 years ago) I did feel like Bush had finished it a few years before me (on further examination it's clear it's a much older tactic in the US such as with the war on drugs you mention). But what you (Konrad) have made me realize that I didn't know/realize is how the same thing is done with the commerce clause you mention. What a power grab! Although I have always been a civil libertarian I know understand the arguement for being a commercial libertarian (zero gov intervention in business) and huge implications that has in foreign relations (or wars)!
So on that note I'll pose a question: would you have the gov (any federal) give up the setting of it's interest rates? If so, how would the gov get its budget money (replacing the gov bonds)?
It's not really an issue since the budget money comes from taxes. Bonds are needed when the government runs a defecit and needs to borrow money. The federal government existed long before it created a central bank, so we know it can work in practice. (The government can also issue bonds to affect interest rates even when it doesn't need the money.)
So it can give up control of interest rates and still have a budget. Now, as to whether it *should* do so, I say yes. I've read and re-read Keynes and I was never able to figure out how his idea of "stimulating" demand could possibly work. And from the work of Milton Friedman (Nobel prize economics 1976) it looks like Keynes was wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home