PDA

View Full Version : APP - Report: NASA can't keep up with killer asteroids



Don Quixote
08-13-2009, 02:06 AM
talk about stupid

By SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON - NASA is charged with spotting most of the asteroids that pose a threat to Earth but doesn't have the money to complete the job, a federal report says.
That's because even though Congress assigned the space agency that mission four years ago, it never gave NASA the money to build the necessary telescopes, according to the report released Wednesday by the National Academy of Sciences.
Specifically, the mission calls for NASA, by the year 2020, to locate 90 percent of the potentially deadly rocks hurtling through space. The agency says it's been able to complete about one-third of its assignment with the current telescope system.
NASA estimates that there are about 20,000 asteroids and comets in our solar system that are potential threats. They are larger than 460 feet in diameter - slightly smaller than the Superdome in New Orleans. So far, scientists know where about 6,000 of these objects are.
Rocks between 460 feet and 3,280 feet in diameter can devastate an entire region, said Lindley Johnson, NASA's manager of the near-Earth objects program. Objects bigger than that are even more threatening, of course.
Just last month astronomers were surprised when an object of unknown size and origin bashed into Jupiter and created an Earth-sized bruise that is still spreading. Jupiter does get slammed more often than Earth because of its immense gravity, enormous size and location.
Disaster movies like "Armageddon" and near misses in previous years may have scared people and alerted them to the threat. But when it comes to monitoring, the academy concluded "there has been relatively little effort by the U.S. government."
And the United States is practically the only government doing anything at all, the report found.
"It shows we have a problem we're not addressing," said Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, an advocacy group.
NASA calculated that to spot the asteroids as required by law would mean spending about $800 million between now and 2020, either with a new ground-based telescope or a space observation system, Johnson said. If NASA got only $300 million it could find most asteroids bigger than 1,000 feet across, he said.
But so far NASA has gotten neither sum.
It may never get the money, said John Logsdon, a space policy professor at George Washington University.
"The program is a little bit of a lame duck," Logsdon said. There is not a big enough group pushing for the money, he said.
At the moment, NASA has identified about five near-Earth objects that pose better than a 1-in-a-million risk of hitting Earth and being big enough to cause serious damage, Johnson said. That number changes from time to time, as new asteroids are added and old ones are removed as information is gathered on their orbits.
The space rocks astronomers are keeping a closest eye on are a 430-foot diameter object that has a 1-in-3,000 chance of hitting Earth in 2048 and a much-talked about asteroid, Apophis, which is twice that size and has a one-in-43,000 chance of hitting in 2036, 2037 or 2069.
Last month, NASA started a new Web site for the public to learn about threatening near-Earth objects.
---
On the Net:
NASA's near-Earth object site: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch

Cypress
08-17-2009, 01:13 PM
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 01:14 PM
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.
However National Defense is one of the enumerated powers of a Federal Government, and your argument is fallacious. Do you know the history of national park creation?

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 01:16 PM
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.

Make a nonprofit space coop to compete with the private X-Prize space people.

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 01:17 PM
However National Defense is one of the enumerated powers of a Federal Government, and your argument is fallacious. Do you know the history of national park creation?

Is NASA administered from the pentagon?

Why can't we use the same logical leap to say healthcare is a national security issue?

Damocles
08-17-2009, 01:19 PM
Is NASA administered from the pentagon?

Why can't we use the same logical leap to say healthcare is a national security issue?
You might, but you must tie it in as the SCOTUS did upon creation of the first national parks. However convoluted the argument, National Parks were deemed a portion of that power. And protecting the nation from and through espionage as well as from non-human threats from space is not a stretch into National Security.

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 01:34 PM
You might, but you must tie it in as the SCOTUS did upon creation of the first national parks. However convoluted the argument, National Parks were deemed a portion of that power. And protecting the nation from and through espionage as well as from non-human threats from space is not a stretch into National Security.

One could make the case that having your citizenry alive is more directly related to national security than national parks are.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 01:39 PM
One could make the case that having your citizenry alive is more directly related to national security than national parks are.
One could, I suspect that when this goes before the SCOTUS they may even do that. However I think the argument could be made that is why we pay for the health insurance of the military, giving some incentive for enlistment.

It's at least as convoluted and confused as the National Park ruling.

However NASA is directly an issue of National Security, hidden not at all. One may argue that the research they do might not fit, but certainly the satellites they service and put into orbit that are directly run by the military are directly national security.

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 01:58 PM
One could, I suspect that when this goes before the SCOTUS they may even do that. However I think the argument could be made that is why we pay for the health insurance of the military, giving some incentive for enlistment.

It's at least as convoluted and confused as the National Park ruling.

However NASA is directly an issue of National Security, hidden not at all. One may argue that the research they do might not fit, but certainly the satellites they service and put into orbit that are directly run by the military are directly national security.

NASA isn't strictly about national security anything. Sending probes to Mars surely falls outside of the national security umbrella. Launching satellites is something the military could do if they wished, and it would be administered from the Pentagon if that's what it was truly about.

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 02:01 PM
NASA isn't strictly about national security anything. Sending probes to Mars surely falls outside of the national security umbrella. Launching satellites is something the military could do if they wished, and it would be administered from the Pentagon if that's what it was truly about.
As I said, one could argue that the research they do might be out of that directive (I think they'd be wrong, advances in the technology we use is a national security issue), but the reality is NASA itself is very obviously a use of National Security, one of the enumerated rights of the Feds...

Damocles
08-17-2009, 02:03 PM
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded.
The question is which of the enumerated powers it falls under. If you can, however convolutedly, get the SCOTUS to agree with you then you would be correct. However it is a stretch to put it under national security.

They are tasked with the General Welfare, but they are given specific powers to fulfill that task all other powers are either rights of the states or of the individual. The individual is guaranteed more rights in Amendment 9, but the government doesn't get magical powers in any of the Amendments, and Amendment 10 is pretty clear.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:07 PM
Don - A space program isn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, as wingnuts will quickly point out.

Or rather, as they should point out. For some strange reason, the enumerated powers is very important to them when talking about health care or food stamps. I actually have never heard a single one of them demand that NASA or the National Parks should be eliminated, as being beyond the boundaries of the enumerated federal tax and spend powers.

I think private citizens, or regional consortiums of states should band together to fund space program functions.

Putting aside the fact that numerous conservatives have historically criticized NASA as a massive waste of money and an unconstitutional departure from the enumerated powers of the federal government, I must express shock if your view of NASA is not tongue-in-cheek. Liberals have traditionally been supportive of NASA, with only the most die-hard economic leftists making an argument that the money would be better spent to feed the homeless, clothe the needy, make larger tomatos, etc.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 02:11 PM
Putting aside the fact that numerous conservatives have historically criticized NASA as a massive waste of money and an unconstitutional departure from the enumerated powers of the federal government, I must express shock if your view of NASA is not tongue-in-cheek. Liberals have traditionally been supportive of NASA, with only the most die-hard economic leftists making an argument that the money would be better spent to feed the homeless, clothe the needy, make larger tomatos, etc.
It is difficult to ignore that other nations build spy satellites, as well as spy-killers, other types of weaponized satellites, and even non-human threats from space, all of these make it clearly a part of national security. Even the research can be used as cover to release satellites, to add military capability. It would be foolish to ignore any threats from space, human or natural.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:13 PM
It is difficult to ignore that other nations build spy satellites, as well as spy-killers, other types of weaponized satellites, and even non-human threats from space, make it clearly a part of national security.

If you say so. That is your opinion, and it is one not shared by myself or numerous other conservatives.

How can you have any credibility to criticize the illegal expansion of the federal government's original powers if you selectively pick and choose what to be outraged about?

Is funding NASA a good idea in terms of national security and technology investment? Probably. But that's not the point. It is not a legitimate function of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 02:14 PM
If you say so. That is your opinion, and it is one not shared by myself or numerous other conservatives.

How can you have any credibility to criticize the illegal expansion of the federal government's original powers if you selectively pick and choose what to be outraged about?

Is funding NASA a good idea in terms of national security and technology investment? Probably. But that's not the point. It is not a legitimate function of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution.
Something as direct as this doesn't even compare to "other" expansion. And of course it is my opinion. It would be foolish to ignore threats from space, especially human threats. National Security is definitely one of the original powers outlined in the constitution.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:15 PM
Agree to disagree. I respect your position even if it isn't consistent.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 02:17 PM
Agree to disagree. I respect your position even if it isn't consistent.
How could it possibly not be consistent? National Security is one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. It's silly to continue to pretend that it isn't or that it is "inconsistent" to state so.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:19 PM
It is an unintended expansion of that power in the way that the Eisenhower interstate system was. Both have pretty inarguably turned out well for America, but that does not negate the fact that these were not roles that the Founding Fathers proscribed for the federal government. They are at best distant cousins of national security.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 02:28 PM
I would think that the general welfare cause allowed the interstate system?

It would have great military usage during an invasion, but that was definitely just a afterthought to the massive domestic benefits of the system.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 02:29 PM
Detecting killer asteroids is a purely national security issue, but I don't think you could expand that to the rest of NASA (besides, maybe, the national pride that the program gave us during the cold war, which is really a ridiculously far out argument to make).

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:31 PM
I would think that the general welfare cause allowed the interstate system?

It would have great military usage during an invasion, but that was definitely just a afterthought to the massive domestic benefits of the system.

That was the argument for enacting it, but it was pretty much tongue in cheek. Everyone knew that there was little chance of such an occurrence. And I think it's debatable but fair to say that it might have been allowed by the General Welfare or Interstate Commerce clauses, but that's not how it was proposed. Of course all of this is rather academic now since both clauses have been stretched beyond recognition to allow absolutely anything that a politician needs to pander to his constituency.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 02:51 PM
It is an unintended expansion of that power in the way that the Eisenhower interstate system was. Both have pretty inarguably turned out well for America, but that does not negate the fact that these were not roles that the Founding Fathers proscribed for the federal government. They are at best distant cousins of national security.
I cannot see how it is a "distant cousin" please elaborate. Other nations directly weaponize space and use it for espionage, directly combating such actions is directly (not second cousin) national security.

DamnYankee
08-17-2009, 02:56 PM
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded. What's retarded is bringing up the issue of health care in every possible debate. Buy your own health care you cheap bastard and STFU about it.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:57 PM
What other nation has "directly weaponized" space besides ourselves? We are the only non-signatory to the space weapons ban.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 02:58 PM
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded.

This is completely off subject, but just to humor you I'd be curious to hear why you think the concept of obeying the Constitution's limits on the enumerated powers of the federal government is "totally fucking retarded".

If anything, it is your view that requires considerable explanation/tapdancing.

DamnYankee
08-17-2009, 03:02 PM
I would think that the general welfare cause allowed the interstate system?

.... Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 7: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

Cancel5
08-17-2009, 03:05 PM
However National Defense is one of the enumerated powers of a Federal Government, and your argument is fallacious. Do you know the history of national park creation?

Roosevelt's name comes to mind, but beyond that, my mind isn't conjuring, anything, else.

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Back to the point - the argument that healthcare isn't explicitly listed in the constitution as one of the duties of the federal government and therefore the federal government can't do healthcare, is totally fucking retarded.

whats totally retarded is trying to attach powers to a federal government that they aren't granted.

what specifically enumerated power would give congress the power to regulate health care? it's not general welfare. It's not commerce, unless you wish to support gonzalez v. raich.

It's a power delegated solely to the state, if the people of that state decide it to be.

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:08 PM
Something as direct as this doesn't even compare to "other" expansion. And of course it is my opinion. It would be foolish to ignore threats from space, especially human threats. National Security is definitely one of the original powers outlined in the constitution.

national security, in my opinion, is certainly a coverage of NASA, if only to use satelites for monitoring oceans and borders for military manuevers from other nations.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 03:09 PM
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 7: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

Post office = socialism

OUR FOUNDERS WERE SOCIALISTS!

The interstate system isn't really a post road. It's at least not built with that in mind as anything resembling it's primary purpose; the system would be a lot simpler if it were just for post offices.

Cancel5
08-17-2009, 03:10 PM
national security, in my opinion, is certainly a coverage of NASA, if only to use satelites for monitoring oceans and borders for military manuevers from other nations.

The nation that controls space controls the future, was that one of Reagan's quotes?

Magnetism, that is scary.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 03:14 PM
national security, in my opinion, is certainly a coverage of NASA, if only to use satelites for monitoring oceans and borders for military manuevers from other nations.

But it doesn't cover scientific research.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 03:15 PM
What other nation has "directly weaponized" space besides ourselves? We are the only non-signatory to the space weapons ban.
Yeah, and that makes it so that the USSR (now Russia) would never do that. No nation has ever in history signed a treaty and then clandestinely violated it...

:rolleyes:

And how many nations do you know that use spy satellites and satellite killers? Do you know the capacity of these satellites for use as over the horizon targeting?

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:15 PM
Post office = socialism

OUR FOUNDERS WERE SOCIALISTS!

The interstate system isn't really a post road. It's at least not built with that in mind as anything resembling it's primary purpose; the system would be a lot simpler if it were just for post offices.

the interstate highway system was originally planned under national security, which was crap, but should have been done under the commerce clause since that's what it's mainly used for.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 03:15 PM
But it doesn't cover scientific research.
This is depending on what you aim the research has. Other nations use such research to build bigger and better weapons, it is unrealistic to say we should sit and do nothing in that direction.

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:17 PM
But it doesn't cover scientific research.

and it shouldn't. privately financed scientific research has always been proven to be more economically sound and generally produces better quality technology

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 03:26 PM
This is completely off subject, but just to humor you I'd be curious to hear why you think the concept of obeying the Constitution's limits on the enumerated powers of the federal government is "totally fucking retarded".

If anything, it is your view that requires considerable explanation/tapdancing.

It's the tyranny of dead ideas. Without spending any real time on this (because you'll never convince someone who fetishizes the constitution that it maybe wasn't the most perfect document ever written), I'll leave it at saying I could point out probably a hundred different programs modern America couldn't live without right now that would take some serious "tap dancing" to show how the feds had the power to ever do them granted in the constitution.

We've mentioned a couple here already.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 03:27 PM
and it shouldn't. privately financed scientific research has always been proven to be more economically sound and generally produces better quality technology

Source?

I know private sources are far better funded.

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:33 PM
It's the tyranny of dead ideas. Without spending any real time on this (because you'll never convince someone who fetishizes the constitution that it maybe wasn't the most perfect document ever written)

The constitution was written with the intent of limiting government power as much as possible, keeping a free people with their freedom. somewhere along the lines, that got to be too scary for liberals.

DamnYankee
08-17-2009, 03:34 PM
...
The interstate system isn't really a post road. It's at least not built with that in mind as anything resembling it's primary purpose; the system would be a lot simpler if it were just for post offices. The minor portion used to haul "post" (postage) is paid for by "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". The majority of the traffic, non post, pays for their portion by way of a separate tax on fuel.

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:35 PM
Source?

I know private sources are far better funded.

its simple common sense when you consider that a private entity does it's research to make a profit, where the government absconds money from the citizenry to create what they need with little regard to the cost.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 03:40 PM
its simple common sense when you consider that a private entity does it's research to make a profit, where the government absconds money from the citizenry to create what they need with little regard to the cost.

That is not an argument.

Could you explain to me why it's common sense instead of simply labeling it so? Provide some evidence, maybe?

ib1yysguy
08-17-2009, 03:56 PM
You cannot rely on private research alone. Common sense tells you that. ;)

Private research funds what it thinks can be profitable. You'll never see a private research firm building a Hubbell telescope, yet the material we've gotten from Hubbell has been invaluable in expanding our understanding of the universe. Government funded research has a huge place in modern science.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 03:56 PM
It's the tyranny of dead ideas. Without spending any real time on this (because you'll never convince someone who fetishizes the constitution that it maybe wasn't the most perfect document ever written), I'll leave it at saying I could point out probably a hundred different programs modern America couldn't live without right now that would take some serious "tap dancing" to show how the feds had the power to ever do them granted in the constitution.

We've mentioned a couple here already.

Saying we couldn't live without any of them is a vast stretch. It would be politically unpopular to do away with them. That is by no means the same thing.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 03:58 PM
Saying we couldn't live without any of them is a vast stretch. It would be politically unpopular to do away with them. That is by no means the same thing.

I think it would have effects beyond being politically unpopular.

SmarterthanYou
08-17-2009, 03:59 PM
That is not an argument.

Could you explain to me why it's common sense instead of simply labeling it so? Provide some evidence, maybe?

maybe you could see through your marxist blinders, but try this one for now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5966

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 04:00 PM
maybe you could see through your marxist blinders, but try this one for now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5966

Cato is a poor source, but I'll check it out.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 04:03 PM
Post office = socialism

OUR FOUNDERS WERE SOCIALISTS!

The interstate system isn't really a post road. It's at least not built with that in mind as anything resembling it's primary purpose; the system would be a lot simpler if it were just for post offices.

They were in some respects. The post office provision being one, as you pointed out. The provision for public education being another.

Calling something socialist is no different than calling it orange. It is a factual observation devoid of positive or negative connotation. The connotations only come from the moral and political implications you attach to the word.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 04:04 PM
All the examples provided are for pharmaceutical remedies.

Did a private corporation discover gravity?

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 04:09 PM
Without the public research conducted by Newton at the University of Oxford we wouldn't be half the society we are today.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-17-2009, 04:11 PM
And the federal government does not "crowd out" private investment. Research is not a zero-sum game.

Cypress
08-17-2009, 07:49 PM
Wow, this thread demonstrates with perfect clarity the absolute hypocrisy, and total lack of any consistent ideological foundation of movement conservatives.

The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.

But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".

Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.


Man this thread was funny.

Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.

uscitizen
08-17-2009, 07:56 PM
Keeping gays from marrying is a matter of national security!

Cypress
08-17-2009, 08:05 PM
Keeping gays from marrying is a matter of national security!


Well, at least on that Cons were for once, consistent. They proposed a constitutional amendment denying gay americans the right to enter into a marriage contract.

I'm still trying to figure out how the creation of Yellow Stone Park, or the U.S. Geological Survey are related to National Security.


I guess I could claim that health care is a national security issue, and cons would have to give up using the discredited enumerated powers argument.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 08:22 PM
Wow, this thread demonstrates with perfect clarity the absolute hypocrisy, and total lack of any consistent ideological foundation of movement conservatives.

The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.

But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".

Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.


Man this thread was funny.

Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.
I never said it was appropriate, I said it was how the SCOTUS ruled on National Parks, oddly enough.

However, the space race is definitely a national security issue. Now you I expect to be disingenuous that way, unlike ib1 who pretends that he is "disappointed" in others.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 08:40 PM
Wow, this thread demonstrates with perfect clarity the absolute hypocrisy, and total lack of any consistent ideological foundation of movement conservatives.

The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.

But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".

Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.


Man this thread was funny.

Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.

Umm excuse me? I was perfectly consistent. In fact I called out Damocles for not being consistent.

You are quite the selective reader.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 08:42 PM
Umm excuse me? I was perfectly consistent. In fact I called out Damocles for not being consistent.

You are quite the selective reader.
Again explain my "inconsistency" you are making no sense. I have been very consistent. I believe that the government is given the authority for national defense, and that there are obvious human and natural threats from that arena. It is definitely, IMO, a solid national defense arena.

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 08:45 PM
Damocles why are you being obtuse? As much as I hate to ever agree with Cypress on anything he did point out the remarkable footwork you have to perform to be able to justify NASA on the grounds of national security.

You take a broader interpretation and I take a narrower interpretation. You probably see mine as restrictive, while I see yours as inconsistent or stretched beyond recognition. By stretching the national security power that far you basically do open up the door for people like him to claim that healthcare is a national security issue. It is a comparable stretch.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 08:54 PM
Damocles why are you being obtuse? As much as I hate to ever agree with Cypress on anything he did point out the remarkable footwork you have to perform to be able to justify NASA on the grounds of national security.

You take a broader interpretation and I take a narrower interpretation. You probably see mine as restrictive, while I see yours as inconsistent or stretched beyond recognition. By stretching the national security power that far you basically do open up the door for people like him to claim that healthcare is a national security issue. It is a comparable stretch.
*sigh* I am not being "obtuse" I am being very direct. Straight line path here.

There is no way to make it any more of a direct path. It is equivalent to "there is a threat of nuclear weapons, therefore it is national security to either defend or create your own", I can't make any more direct path. You can argue against the research portions and other parts of it being outside that boundary, but there is a direct national security mission.

And no, health care for all is far more of a stretch, we provide health care to our military because a healthy military is a mission of national defense. One can argue the need for a standing army, but one cannot pretend that keeping soldiers healthy isn't a mission of national defense.

Each of these are straight and direct lines. It's like saying a Navy is unnecessary. It is just a different venue where attacks can come from whether by intel gathering, targeting, or even direct attacks on satellites... (ever see the "tests" done by other nations using missiles to destroy something in space?)

Epicurus
08-17-2009, 09:03 PM
Okay I don't see it that way. As I said like 2 pages ago: agree to disagree.

We're beating a dead horse here. Interesting argument though.

Damocles
08-17-2009, 09:08 PM
Okay I don't see it that way. As I said like 2 pages ago: agree to disagree.

We're beating a dead horse here. Interesting argument though.
I think you are willfully not seeing it.

IMO, it's like saying that submarines don't have a national security use because some of them perform research. That ships have no mission because there is research done on some of them (yes even military ones). It just makes no sense to ignore the fact that other nations use space directly for military missions (again examples, intel gathering and targeting) and say that there is none for the US because research is also done there.

But okay, agree to disagree.

DamnYankee
08-18-2009, 05:59 AM
Wow, this thread demonstrates with perfect clarity the absolute hypocrisy, and total lack of any consistent ideological foundation of movement conservatives.

The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.

But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".

Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.


Man this thread was funny.

Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.

The national parks are not a national security issue.

Damocles
08-18-2009, 08:05 AM
The national parks are not a national security issue.
I fully agree. The ruling on it by the SCOTUS was incredibly convoluted twisting in order to rule that the US could keep using eminent domain to scoop up properties for this purpose. It was clear as you read it that they were writing a ruling based on what they wanted rather than what was law.



Link (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/history_military/nmpidea5a.htm)

On January 27, 1896, Justice Rufus Wheeler Peckham of the United States Supreme Court handed down the court's unanimous decision. His language was eloquent and reflects the spirit of the time:


The end to be attained, by this proposed use, as provided for by the act of Congress, is legitimate, and lies within the scope of the constitution. The battle of Gettysburg was one of the great battles of the world. The numbers contained in the opposing armies were great; the sacrifices of life was dreadful; while the bravery, and, indeed, heroism displayed by both contending forces, rank with the highest exhibition of these qualities ever made by man. The importance of the issue involved in the contest of which this great battle was a part cannot be overestimated. The existence of the government itself, and the perpetuity of our institutions depended upon the result... .Can it be that the government is without power to preserve the land, and properly mark out the various sites upon which this struggle took place? Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country.


By this resounding decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of acquiring private property by right of eminent domain for Gettysburg National Park and established the principle that the preservation of nationally important historic sites and buildings is a legitimate purpose of the Government of the United States.

DamnYankee
08-18-2009, 08:27 AM
I fully agree. The ruling on it by the SCOTUS was incredibly convoluted twisting in order to rule that the US could keep using eminent domain to scoop up properties for this purpose. It was clear as you read it that they were writing a ruling based on what they wanted rather than what was law. We have land trusts here and they're buying properties all along the Blue Ridge parkway and such. I say more power to them as long as they pay market prices of the land is freely donated. But to use eminent domain for that is fucked up.