Higher Education Bill in Congress - PASSED

[Si modo]

Si,
When the Constitution is ignored by the very people entrusted to preserve, protect, uphold it, it leads to mob rule.

Yes, the impurity is already present. Why should we enable said impurity to get even worse? That makes no sense to me. Using your reasoning, if the government is funding something you don't agree with per the Constitution, it should just keep doing that, because the impurity is already there.

I doubt you practice such a philosophy in your personal life. Why do you advocate such for the foundation of this Republic?

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

James Madison

Really, I do agree with what you say in principle. Most definitely.

However (and you just knew that a 'however' was coming up ), I can justify this pragmatism to meet an obligation that is outlined in the Constitution - protection of our system (the premise that a citizenry where those who are able are as highly educated as possible is necessary to national security). It comes to my priorities. If we go with Constitutional purity (amend to allow for governement funded education) and still meet that security need, then it seems we must do far more radical reform to meet that need with a major time lag waiting for states' ratification. If we accept that impurity (government funded education) and go with an efficiency reform of education, the reform is far less complicated. And, start work on an amendment for the purists (which I usually am) while not losing an education edge.

Using the household analogy, if I have guests coming over in half an hour, I will vacuum the room, but I won't move the furniture. I'll save that for later.

Yes, I knew a "however" or a "but" was coming.

I can't believe you are putting forth such a tepid retort Si. You can do much better than trying to tell me federal funding is a must, because it is national security. Playing the emotional rationalization card with me will not work Si. If you want to wrestle with me, you will have to do better than that.

Using your Pepsi laden rationale , the political whores in Washington as well as the hack employers can call any pet project of theirs national security interest and see to federal funding. Oh, wait. They are already doing that. Where does the madness end Si?

I come over to your house, and I tell you that what I want to do is of national security and I have a right to some of your money. What will you tell me? Do I have a right to your money?

I'm loving your comebacks.

Yes, I am the Manchurian rightie. LOL. I drink Pepsi in private and binge on circus peanuts when no one is looking. LMAO.

I knew you would ask for justification of my national security argument, as you should have. And, for the life of me I cannot recall the name of the scientist whose recommendation letter to Eisenhower in the 50s set the tone for funding of the sciences and education in the sciences (I am focused on that aspect of education) as a national security need.

Anyway, I am having a major block at this time, but knowing my obsessive nature, I assure you that I will find that landmark theory that has stood the test of time so far before midnight.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Really, I do agree with what you say in principle. Most definitely.

However (and you just knew that a 'however' was coming up ), I can justify this pragmatism to meet an obligation that is outlined in the Constitution - protection of our system (the premise that a citizenry where those who are able are as highly educated as possible is necessary to national security). It comes to my priorities. If we go with Constitutional purity (amend to allow for governement funded education) and still meet that security need, then it seems we must do far more radical reform to meet that need with a major time lag waiting for states' ratification. If we accept that impurity (government funded education) and go with an efficiency reform of education, the reform is far less complicated. And, start work on an amendment for the purists (which I usually am) while not losing an education edge.

Using the household analogy, if I have guests coming over in half an hour, I will vacuum the room, but I won't move the furniture. I'll save that for later.

Yes, I knew a "however" or a "but" was coming.

I can't believe you are putting forth such a tepid retort Si. You can do much better than trying to tell me federal funding is a must, because it is national security. Playing the emotional rationalization card with me will not work Si. If you want to wrestle with me, you will have to do better than that.

Using your Pepsi laden rationale , the political whores in Washington as well as the hack employers can call any pet project of theirs national security interest and see to federal funding. Oh, wait. They are already doing that. Where does the madness end Si?

I come over to your house, and I tell you that what I want to do is of national security and I have a right to some of your money. What will you tell me? Do I have a right to your money?

I'm loving your comebacks.

Yes, I am the Manchurian rightie. LOL. I drink Pepsi in private and binge on circus peanuts when no one is looking. LMAO.

I knew you would ask for justification of my national security argument, as you should have. And, for the life of me I cannot recall the name of the scientist whose recommendation letter to Eisenhower in the 50s set the tone for funding of the sciences and education in the sciences (I am focused on that aspect of education) as a national security need.

Anyway, I am having a major block at this time, but knowing my obsessive nature, I assure you that I will find that landmark theory that has stood the test of time so far before midnight.

As to the highlighted part, I knew it! So many wonderful retorts to offer up, but they would be off topic. Darn You lucked out Si.

By all means get back to me. Nothing wrong with being obsessive about BGG. Oh, wait. That is not what you said. I misread. When you find your scientific pro-pepsi thesis, let me know.

 

[Si modo]

Aaaargh! It's orange! LOL.

(Still looking, dammit)

 

[Si modo]

Vannevar Bush (I've become numb to the name) in his letter to Roosevelt (not Eisenhower, but Bush became the first science policy advisor) made quite a good rationale for the need to fund science and science education for national security (this is jut the intro to the full report):

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
---
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IS ESSENTIAL

Progress in the war against disease depends upon a flow of new scientific knowledge. New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical purposes. Similarly, our defense against aggression demands new knowledge so that we can develop new and improved weapons. This essential, new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research.

Science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team, whether the conditions be peace or war. But without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.

For the War Against Disease

We have taken great strides in the war against disease. The death rate for all diseases in the Army, including overseas forces, has been reduced from 14.1 per thousand in the last war to 0.6 per thousand in this war. In the last 40 years life expectancy has increased from 49 to 65 years, largely as a consequence of the reduction in the death rates of infants and children. But we are far from the goal. The annual deaths from one or two diseases far exceed the total number of American lives lost in battle during this war. A large fraction of these deaths in our civilian population cut short the useful lives of our citizens. Approximately 7,000,000 persons in the United States are mentally ill and their care costs the public over $175,000,000 a year. Clearly much illness remains for which adequate means of prevention and cure are not yet known.

The responsibility for basic research in medicine and the underlying sciences, so essential to progress in the war against disease, falls primarily upon the medical schools and universities. Yet we find that the traditional sources of support for medical research in the medical schools and universities, largely endowment income, foundation grants, and private donations, are diminishing and there is no immediate prospect of a change in this trend. Meanwhile, the cost of medical research has been rising. If we are to maintain the progress in medicine which has marked the last 25 years, the Government should extend financial support to basic medical research in the medical schools and in universities.

For Our National Security

The bitter and dangerous battle against the U-boat was a battle of scientific techniques - and our margin of success was dangerously small. The new eyes which radar has supplied can sometimes be blinded by new scientific developments. V-2 was countered only by capture of the launching sites.

We cannot again rely on our allies to hold off the enemy while we struggle to catch up. There must be more - and more adequate - military research in peacetime. It is essential that the civilian scientists continue in peacetime some portion of those contributions to national security which they have made so effectively during the war. This can best be done through a civilian-controlled organization with close liaison with the Army and Navy, but with funds direct from Congress, and the clear power to initiate military research which will supplement and strengthen that carried on directly under the control of the Army and Navy.

And for the Public Welfare

One of our hopes is that after the war there will be full employment. To reach that goal the full creative and productive energies of the American people must be released. To create more jobs we must make new and better and cheaper products. We want plenty of new, vigorous enterprises. But new products and processes are not born full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn result from basic scientific research. Basic scientific research is scientific capital. Moreover, we cannot any longer depend upon Europe as a major source of this scientific capital. Clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment.

How do we increase this scientific capital? First, we must have plenty of men and women trained in science, for upon them depends both the creation of new knowledge and its application to practical purposes. Second, we must strengthen the centers of basic research which are principally the colleges, universities, and research institutes. These institutions provide the environment which is most conducive to the creation of new scientific knowledge and least under pressure for immediate, tangible results. With some notable exceptions, most research in industry and Government involves application of existing scientific knowledge to practical problems. It is only the colleges, universities, and a few research institutes that devote most of their research efforts to expanding the frontiers of knowledge.

Expenditures for scientific research by industry and Government increased from $140,000,000 in 1930 to $309,000,000 in 1940. Those for the colleges and universities increased from $20,000,000 to $31,000,000, while those for the research institutes declined from $5,200,000 to $4,500,000 during the same period. If the colleges, universities, and research institutes are to meet the rapidly increasing demands of industry and Government for new scientific knowledge, their basic research should be strengthened by use of public funds.

For science to serve as a powerful factor in our national welfare, applied research both in Government and in industry must be vigorous. To improve the quality of scientific research within the Government, steps should be taken to modify the procedures for recruiting, classifying, and compensating scientific personnel in order to reduce the present handicap of governmental scientific bureaus in competing with industry and the universities for top-grade scientific talent. To provide coordination of the common scientific activities of these governmental agencies as to policies and budgets, a permanent Science Advisory Board should be created to advise the executive and legislative branches of Government on these matters.

The most important ways in which the Government can promote industrial research are to increase the flow of new scientific knowledge through support of basic research, and to aid in the development of scientific talent. In addition, the Government should provide suitable incentives to industry to conduct research, (a) by clarification of present uncertainties in the Internal Revenue Code in regard to the deductibility of research and development expenditures as current charges against net income, and (b) by strengthening the patent system so as to eliminate uncertainties which now bear heavily on small industries and so as to prevent abuses which reflect discredit upon a basically sound system. In addition, ways should be found to cause the benefits of basic research to reach industries which do not now utilize new scientific knowledge.

WE MUST RENEW OUR SCIENTIFIC TALENT

The responsibility for the creation of new scientific knowledge - and for most of its application - rests on that small body of men and women who understand the fundamental laws of nature and are skilled in the techniques of scientific research. We shall have rapid or slow advance on any scientific frontier depending on the number of highly qualified and trained scientists exploring it.

The deficit of science and technology students who, but for the war, would have received bachelor's degrees is about 150,000. It is estimated that the deficit of those obtaining advanced degrees in these fields will amount in 1955 to about 17,000 - for it takes at least 6 years from college entry to achieve a doctor's degree or its equivalent in science or engineering. The real ceiling on our productivity of new scientific knowledge and its application in the war against disease, and the development of new products and new industries, is the number of trained scientists available.

The training of a scientist is a long and expensive process. Studies clearly show that there are talented individuals in every part of the population, but with few exceptions, those without the means of buying higher education go without it. If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, determines who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity. The Government should provide a reasonable number of undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships in order to develop scientific talent in American youth. The plans should be designed to attract into science only that proportion of youthful talent appropriate to the needs of science in relation to the other needs of the nation for high abilities.

Including Those in Uniform

The most immediate prospect of making up the deficit in scientific personnel is to develop the scientific talent in the generation now in uniform. Even if we should start now to train the current crop of high-school graduates none would complete graduate studies before 1951. The Armed Services should comb their records for men who, prior to or during the war, have given evidence of talent for science, and make prompt arrangements, consistent with current discharge plans, for ordering those who remain in uniform, as soon as militarily possible, to duty at institutions here and overseas where they can continue their scientific education. Moreover, the Services should see that those who study overseas have the benefit of the latest scientific information resulting from research during the war.

THE LID MUST BE LIFTED

While most of the war research has involved the application of existing scientific knowledge to the problems of war, rather than basic research, there has been accumulated a vast amount of information relating to the application of science to particular problems. Much of this can be used by industry. It is also needed for teaching in the colleges and universities here and in the Armed Forces Institutes overseas. Some of this information must remain secret, but most of it should be made public as soon as there is ground for belief that the enemy will not be able to turn it against us in this war. To select that portion which should be made public, to coordinate its release, and definitely to encourage its publication, a Board composed of Army, Navy, and civilian scientific members should be promptly established.

A PROGRAM FOR ACTION

The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it. For many years the Government has wisely supported research in the agricultural colleges and the benefits have been great. The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.

The effective discharge of these new responsibilities will require the full attention of some over-all agency devoted to that purpose. There is not now in the permanent Governmental structure receiving its funds from Congress an agency adapted to supplementing the support of basic research in the colleges, universities, and research institutes, both in medicine and the natural sciences, adapted to supporting research on new weapons for both Services, or adapted to administering a program of science scholarships and fellowships.

Therefore I recommend that a new agency for these purposes be established. Such an agency should be composed of persons of broad interest and experience, having an understanding of the peculiarities of scientific research and scientific education. It should have stability of funds so that long-range programs may be undertaken. It should recognize that freedom of inquiry must be preserved and should leave internal control of policy, personnel, and the method and scope of research to the institutions in which it is carried on. It should be fully responsible to the President and through him to the Congress for its program.

Early action on these recommendations is imperative if this nation is to meet the challenge of science in the crucial years ahead. On the wisdom with which we bring science to bear in the war against disease, in the creation of new industries, and in the strengthening of our Armed Forces depends in large measure our future as a nation.

NSF History

This single report convinced Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of the importance of science and science education to our national security. Because of this, Bush was the founder of the NSF.

This is the foundation of scientific policy which includes a strong focus on education and is rationalize with a national security need.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Vannevar Bush (I've become numb to the name) in his letter to Roosevelt (not Eisenhower, but Bush became the first science policy advisor) made quite a good rationale for the need to fund science and science education for national security (this is jut the intro to the full report):

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
---
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IS ESSENTIAL

Progress in the war against disease depends upon a flow of new scientific knowledge. New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical purposes. Similarly, our defense against aggression demands new knowledge so that we can develop new and improved weapons. This essential, new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research.

Science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team, whether the conditions be peace or war. But without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.

For the War Against Disease

We have taken great strides in the war against disease. The death rate for all diseases in the Army, including overseas forces, has been reduced from 14.1 per thousand in the last war to 0.6 per thousand in this war. In the last 40 years life expectancy has increased from 49 to 65 years, largely as a consequence of the reduction in the death rates of infants and children. But we are far from the goal. The annual deaths from one or two diseases far exceed the total number of American lives lost in battle during this war. A large fraction of these deaths in our civilian population cut short the useful lives of our citizens. Approximately 7,000,000 persons in the United States are mentally ill and their care costs the public over $175,000,000 a year. Clearly much illness remains for which adequate means of prevention and cure are not yet known.

The responsibility for basic research in medicine and the underlying sciences, so essential to progress in the war against disease, falls primarily upon the medical schools and universities. Yet we find that the traditional sources of support for medical research in the medical schools and universities, largely endowment income, foundation grants, and private donations, are diminishing and there is no immediate prospect of a change in this trend. Meanwhile, the cost of medical research has been rising. If we are to maintain the progress in medicine which has marked the last 25 years, the Government should extend financial support to basic medical research in the medical schools and in universities.

For Our National Security

The bitter and dangerous battle against the U-boat was a battle of scientific techniques - and our margin of success was dangerously small. The new eyes which radar has supplied can sometimes be blinded by new scientific developments. V-2 was countered only by capture of the launching sites.

We cannot again rely on our allies to hold off the enemy while we struggle to catch up. There must be more - and more adequate - military research in peacetime. It is essential that the civilian scientists continue in peacetime some portion of those contributions to national security which they have made so effectively during the war. This can best be done through a civilian-controlled organization with close liaison with the Army and Navy, but with funds direct from Congress, and the clear power to initiate military research which will supplement and strengthen that carried on directly under the control of the Army and Navy.

And for the Public Welfare

One of our hopes is that after the war there will be full employment. To reach that goal the full creative and productive energies of the American people must be released. To create more jobs we must make new and better and cheaper products. We want plenty of new, vigorous enterprises. But new products and processes are not born full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn result from basic scientific research. Basic scientific research is scientific capital. Moreover, we cannot any longer depend upon Europe as a major source of this scientific capital. Clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment.

How do we increase this scientific capital? First, we must have plenty of men and women trained in science, for upon them depends both the creation of new knowledge and its application to practical purposes. Second, we must strengthen the centers of basic research which are principally the colleges, universities, and research institutes. These institutions provide the environment which is most conducive to the creation of new scientific knowledge and least under pressure for immediate, tangible results. With some notable exceptions, most research in industry and Government involves application of existing scientific knowledge to practical problems. It is only the colleges, universities, and a few research institutes that devote most of their research efforts to expanding the frontiers of knowledge.

Expenditures for scientific research by industry and Government increased from $140,000,000 in 1930 to $309,000,000 in 1940. Those for the colleges and universities increased from $20,000,000 to $31,000,000, while those for the research institutes declined from $5,200,000 to $4,500,000 during the same period. If the colleges, universities, and research institutes are to meet the rapidly increasing demands of industry and Government for new scientific knowledge, their basic research should be strengthened by use of public funds.

For science to serve as a powerful factor in our national welfare, applied research both in Government and in industry must be vigorous. To improve the quality of scientific research within the Government, steps should be taken to modify the procedures for recruiting, classifying, and compensating scientific personnel in order to reduce the present handicap of governmental scientific bureaus in competing with industry and the universities for top-grade scientific talent. To provide coordination of the common scientific activities of these governmental agencies as to policies and budgets, a permanent Science Advisory Board should be created to advise the executive and legislative branches of Government on these matters.

The most important ways in which the Government can promote industrial research are to increase the flow of new scientific knowledge through support of basic research, and to aid in the development of scientific talent. In addition, the Government should provide suitable incentives to industry to conduct research, (a) by clarification of present uncertainties in the Internal Revenue Code in regard to the deductibility of research and development expenditures as current charges against net income, and (b) by strengthening the patent system so as to eliminate uncertainties which now bear heavily on small industries and so as to prevent abuses which reflect discredit upon a basically sound system. In addition, ways should be found to cause the benefits of basic research to reach industries which do not now utilize new scientific knowledge.

WE MUST RENEW OUR SCIENTIFIC TALENT

The responsibility for the creation of new scientific knowledge - and for most of its application - rests on that small body of men and women who understand the fundamental laws of nature and are skilled in the techniques of scientific research. We shall have rapid or slow advance on any scientific frontier depending on the number of highly qualified and trained scientists exploring it.

The deficit of science and technology students who, but for the war, would have received bachelor's degrees is about 150,000. It is estimated that the deficit of those obtaining advanced degrees in these fields will amount in 1955 to about 17,000 - for it takes at least 6 years from college entry to achieve a doctor's degree or its equivalent in science or engineering. The real ceiling on our productivity of new scientific knowledge and its application in the war against disease, and the development of new products and new industries, is the number of trained scientists available.

The training of a scientist is a long and expensive process. Studies clearly show that there are talented individuals in every part of the population, but with few exceptions, those without the means of buying higher education go without it. If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, determines who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity. The Government should provide a reasonable number of undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships in order to develop scientific talent in American youth. The plans should be designed to attract into science only that proportion of youthful talent appropriate to the needs of science in relation to the other needs of the nation for high abilities.

Including Those in Uniform

The most immediate prospect of making up the deficit in scientific personnel is to develop the scientific talent in the generation now in uniform. Even if we should start now to train the current crop of high-school graduates none would complete graduate studies before 1951. The Armed Services should comb their records for men who, prior to or during the war, have given evidence of talent for science, and make prompt arrangements, consistent with current discharge plans, for ordering those who remain in uniform, as soon as militarily possible, to duty at institutions here and overseas where they can continue their scientific education. Moreover, the Services should see that those who study overseas have the benefit of the latest scientific information resulting from research during the war.

THE LID MUST BE LIFTED

While most of the war research has involved the application of existing scientific knowledge to the problems of war, rather than basic research, there has been accumulated a vast amount of information relating to the application of science to particular problems. Much of this can be used by industry. It is also needed for teaching in the colleges and universities here and in the Armed Forces Institutes overseas. Some of this information must remain secret, but most of it should be made public as soon as there is ground for belief that the enemy will not be able to turn it against us in this war. To select that portion which should be made public, to coordinate its release, and definitely to encourage its publication, a Board composed of Army, Navy, and civilian scientific members should be promptly established.

A PROGRAM FOR ACTION

The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it. For many years the Government has wisely supported research in the agricultural colleges and the benefits have been great. The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.

The effective discharge of these new responsibilities will require the full attention of some over-all agency devoted to that purpose. There is not now in the permanent Governmental structure receiving its funds from Congress an agency adapted to supplementing the support of basic research in the colleges, universities, and research institutes, both in medicine and the natural sciences, adapted to supporting research on new weapons for both Services, or adapted to administering a program of science scholarships and fellowships.

Therefore I recommend that a new agency for these purposes be established. Such an agency should be composed of persons of broad interest and experience, having an understanding of the peculiarities of scientific research and scientific education. It should have stability of funds so that long-range programs may be undertaken. It should recognize that freedom of inquiry must be preserved and should leave internal control of policy, personnel, and the method and scope of research to the institutions in which it is carried on. It should be fully responsible to the President and through him to the Congress for its program.

Early action on these recommendations is imperative if this nation is to meet the challenge of science in the crucial years ahead. On the wisdom with which we bring science to bear in the war against disease, in the creation of new industries, and in the strengthening of our Armed Forces depends in large measure our future as a nation.

NSF History

This single report convinced Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of the importance of science and science education to our national security. Because of this, Bush was the founder of the NSF.

This is the foundation of scientific policy which includes a strong focus on education and is rationalize with a national security need.

I read what you posted. And I must say, Bush does put forth a convincing argument, if one believes in using moral relativism as one of the cornerstones of an emotional appeal. Even in the section pertaining to national defense, he still misses the mark. One of the duties of the federal government is to protect us against invasion. Congress has the duty as well as the authority to declare war and to appropriate funding thereto. In as much as those are their rightful enumerated powers, funding of such school curriculum based agencies through the Congress is not justified in light of the Constitution itself.

Another thing that caught my eye with the post, was this statement under the following section cited.

WE MUST RENEW OUR SCIENTIFIC TALENT

The Government should provide a reasonable number of undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships in order to develop scientific talent in American youth. The plans should be designed to attract into science only that proportion of youthful talent appropriate to the needs of science in relation to the other needs of the nation for high abilities.

Change the word American for another well known nationality and the familiarity is rather chilling, in my opinion.

Besides being biased towards the sciences, Bush makes no mention of the Constitution. As one that is trained in the empirical sciences, I find it rather revealing that he would remove himself from such training and logic, in order to make an impassioned plea to the President. It is possible he did this because he researched the Constitution and or case precedence, and did not believe he had a strong case? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible, he did not consider the legal nuances of the Constitution whether direct or indirect, when making is case before the POTUS? That is possible as well. I do not know for sure his reasoning. In my opinion, he did not bring forth a valid legal case whether implicitly stated or not.

I am also surprised that you felt such a need to bring this cite forward into the debate knowing that said cite at its core amounts to the foundation of logical fallacy. As someone who has been fervent against the use of such in debate, is it your science passion that is making you blind to the fallacy? Only you know the answer to that.

If we put the issue of the Constitution and enumerated powers aside for a moment, and look at the cite in light of its intended purpose, Bush still fails to make a fact filled plea to the President, that codifies the entirety of his argument. The fact that Eisenhower approved this bears no weight with me.

A lot of "if so" arguments being made in the cite Si.

In my opinion, you have failed to put forth a valid legal argument as to the federal funding of education, whether secondary or not.

In my opinion, you have failed to convince me on an emotional level, if I were ruled strictly by my emotions, when it comes to the governance of the Republic.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I agree. I'm sick of education. We want our children uneducated. Who needs it? Can a Republican name a single good thing that ever came from education?

Well, can a Republican NAME ANYTHING, LOL......

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I agree. I'm sick of education. We want our children uneducated. Who needs it? Can a Republican name a single good thing that ever came from education?

Well, can a Republican NAME ANYTHING, LOL......

That hard hitting fact filled retort will sure make reasoned people sit up and take notice.

 

[American Horse]

Si,
When the Constitution is ignored by the very people entrusted to preserve, protect, uphold it, it leads to mob rule.

Yes, the impurity is already present. Why should we enable said impurity to get even worse? That makes no sense to me. Using your reasoning, if the government is funding something you don't agree with per the Constitution, it should just keep doing that, because the impurity is already there.

I doubt you practice such a philosophy in your personal life. Why do you advocate such for the foundation of this Republic?

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

James Madison

People (the citizen population) will accept gradual "progressive" change when they believe in their elected officials, and that they would not allow the destruction of their commonwealth without sounding the alarm. Gradual change seems normal, even if it exceeds constitutional limits. Drastic change is another thing. History shows that in times that seem to require rapid or "radical" change that opportunities are created for demagogues. Institutions are thrown down, and rebellions arise.

The end of the great Roman Republic came about when clever politicians saw opportunities to "game" the constitution. Their system of representative government may not have seemed adequate from our advanced perspective, but it was well understood and accepted by the commons. A group (or several conflicting groups) saw opportunities to present extra constitutional alternatives to long standing traditional constitutional institutions resulting in a well known assassination of one of the usurpers, a populist.

Because of the ensuing chaos the republic was ended with a history of political progress and trust in a system which had lasted just short of 5-centuries. because of that failure of trust, and the ensuing chaos, there followed a 17 year civil war, ending with the over-laying of a military (imperium) dictatorship over the Roman State while seemingly retaining all the same elections for, and to the highest offices; the best of both worlds.

It's interesting that "Imperator" (imperor) meant "Commander - He who commands the military forces." He who commands the military holds the final power, and the high officials, while still elected, held their seats at the pleasure of that singular individual who could bring civil order out of chaos.

I make no allusions to history repeating itself on some grand scale; but the patterns are well known and to some degree predictable; human nature remains the same.

 

[Si modo]

I read what you posted. And I must say, Bush does put forth a convincing argument, if one believes in using moral relativism as one of the cornerstones of an emotional appeal. Even in the section pertaining to national defense, he still misses the mark. One of the duties of the federal government is to protect us against invasion. Congress has the duty as well as the authority to declare war and to appropriate funding thereto. In as much as those are their rightful enumerated powers, funding of such school curriculum based agencies through the Congress is not justified in light of the Constitution itself.

Another thing that caught my eye with the post, was this statement under the following section cited.

WE MUST RENEW OUR SCIENTIFIC TALENT

The Government should provide a reasonable number of undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships in order to develop scientific talent in American youth. The plans should be designed to attract into science only that proportion of youthful talent appropriate to the needs of science in relation to the other needs of the nation for high abilities.

Change the word American for another well known nationality and the familiarity is rather chilling, in my opinion.

Besides being biased towards the sciences, Bush makes no mention of the Constitution. As one that is trained in the empirical sciences, I find it rather revealing that he would remove himself from such training and logic, in order to make an impassioned plea to the President. It is possible he did this because he researched the Constitution and or case precedence, and did not believe he had a strong case? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible, he did not consider the legal nuances of the Constitution whether direct or indirect, when making is case before the POTUS? That is possible as well. I do not know for sure his reasoning. In my opinion, he did not bring forth a valid legal case whether implicitly stated or not.

I am also surprised that you felt such a need to bring this cite forward into the debate knowing that said cite at its core amounts to the foundation of logical fallacy. As someone who has been fervent against the use of such in debate, is it your science passion that is making you blind to the fallacy? Only you know the answer to that.

If we put the issue of the Constitution and enumerated powers aside for a moment, and look at the cite in light of its intended purpose, Bush still fails to make a fact filled plea to the President, that codifies the entirety of his argument. The fact that Eisenhower approved this bears no weight with me.

A lot of "if so" arguments being made in the cite Si.

In my opinion, you have failed to put forth a valid legal argument as to the federal funding of education, whether secondary or not.

In my opinion, you have failed to convince me on an emotional level, if I were ruled strictly by my emotions, when it comes to the governance of the Republic.

With respect to your mentioning that the Constitution specifies a governmental duty to protect from invasion: Given the Soviet goal of expansion (Eastern Bloc growth was quite accelerated post WWII) combined with ICBMs and nuclear weapons, protecting ourselves form invasion and loss of our system in the Cold War meant keeping our technology at least as advanced as the Soviets (less so with the Chinese as they had as strong a desire to expand as did the Soviets). I find that Bush makes a compelling and accurate argument for this funding of sciences and technology and education to keep our defensive position against and offensive opponent int the Cold War. If not for the elan captured and coerced brains gave us from WWII in technology (nuclear) and our subsequent follow-up with such funding, our position during the Cold War and subsequent win would have been much different.

Bush is biased toward the sciences, as am I, as having a strong scientific position is necessary for national security. I hardly think that one can propose that our security immediately after WWII and during the Cold War would have been in a reasonable position without our technological advantages. Sustaining that advantage with continued assets in the educational system is in the continued interest of our security. And, it remains so today as well.

This argument indeed falls short in justifying federal spending (and regulation) of all education; that I concede. I do not see it falling short at all in justifying funding of education in the sciences, pure and applied, as paramount to our continued security.

I accept that maintaining such intellectual assets in the sciences is necessary for our security against invasion and attack, a Constitutional duty.