Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

[OKTexas]

Try reading it for yourself, the feds are limited to promoting the sciences and useful arts by providing patents and copyright only. It's very straight forward sentence, even you should be able to understand it. That is the ONLY ENUMERATED POWER on the subject.

Well, this is the sentence, which you claim "explicitly prohibits funding" .

'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;'

If you are smart, you will admit that you got this wrong and apologise. If you are stupid, you'll descend into a tantrum.

To promote, by securing, what about that do you not understand? Where is any doubt or wiggle room there? Come on genius, educate me.

 

[Saigon]

OK Texas -

You claimed "explicitly prohibits funding"

If you want to prolong your own humiliation by questioning that - go right ahead.

 

[OKTexas]

OK Texas -

You claimed "explicitly prohibits funding"

If you want to prolong your own humiliation by questioning that - go right ahead.

So tell me where it permits funding for anything other than a patent and copyright office.

 

[Saigon]

OKTexas -

Do you understand the different between a document that "explicity prohibits" something, and a document that "permits" something?

The Constitution uses the word "PROMOTE", not "PROHIBIT".

I somehow knew you wouldn't be able to 'fess up to the mistake. Much better to be humiliated.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas -

Do you understand the different between a document that "explicity prohibits" something, and a document that "permits" something?

The Constitution uses the word "PROMOTE", not "PROHIBIT".

I somehow knew you wouldn't be able to 'fess up to the mistake. Much better to be humiliated.

Do you understand the concept of our Constitution, if something is not specifically allowed to the federal government it is prohibited. That is the principle behind enumerated powers.

 

[Saigon]

if something is not specifically allowed

The constitution reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,"

Hence, it is not "explicity prohibited".

Wow, OKTexas, you come across as really, really smart on this thread.

 

[OKTexas]

if something is not specifically allowed

The constitution reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,"

Hence, it is not "explicity prohibited".

Wow, OKTexas, you come across as really, really smart on this thread.

What is it you don't understand about the limiting portion of the sentence "by securing", their promotion is limited to securing patents and copyrights to inventors and authors, period.

 

[Agit8r]

OKTexas -

Do you understand the different between a document that "explicity prohibits" something, and a document that "permits" something?

The Constitution uses the word "PROMOTE", not "PROHIBIT".

I somehow knew you wouldn't be able to 'fess up to the mistake. Much better to be humiliated.

Do you understand the concept of our Constitution, if something is not specifically allowed to the federal government it is prohibited. That is the principle behind enumerated powers.

That's not what they thought when they ratified it: The Federalist #44

 

[Jarlaxle]

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

I agree.

So, when do you buy a Fisker Karma electric?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

I agree.

So, when do you buy a Fisker Karma electric?

Oh! Way to show how cool you are with an obscure car reference! You bad ass you!

 

[Stephanie]

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

I agree.

yeah, that obama knows all

 

[Freewill]

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

NEDRA PICKLER and MATTHEW DALY | March 15, 2013 06:03 PM EST | Associated Press
Compare other versions »

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

LEMONT, Ill. — Envisioning cars that can go "coast to coast without using a drop of oil," President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to authorize spending $2 billion over the next decade to expand research into electric cars and biofuels to wean automobiles off gasoline.

Obama, expanding on an initiative he addressed in his State of the Union speech last month, said the United States must shift its cars and trucks entirely off oil to avoid perpetual fluctuations in gas prices. Citing policies that already require automakers to increase gas mileage, he said he expects that by the middle of the next decade, Americans will only have to fill up their cars half as often.

"We've set some achievable but ambitious goals," Obama said, speaking at Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago

"The only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices – the only way to break that cycle for good – is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil," the president said.

Friday's speech, with its focus on energy, was designed to draw attention to what the White House says is one of Obama's top agenda items for his second term. That focus, however, has been overshadowed as the administration and Congress work on an immigration overhaul, gun legislation and deficit-reduction measures.

Obama cast his proposal as not only a clean energy plan, but as one meant to create opportunities for economic growth.

I'm for research and development...Let the private sector apply it if this is successful without government.

Sigh, once again more rhetoric. We don't need to do any more research we can do it today. First I would commit that all new federal cars/trucks be converted to natural gas or electric. Then I would commit to all fueling stations on all of the interstates highways have to have natural gas filling stations, and electric charging. Give huge tax credits to those fueling stations who install the same.

Eliminate sales tax on any car that uses natural gas or electric and is priced under 20,000.

In this same vein I would support the developing of our natural gas resources and clean coal technology.

I think what I suggest is what they will do it is logical and just makes sense. It also gives private industry incentive without dictating what they have to do.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas -

Do you understand the different between a document that "explicity prohibits" something, and a document that "permits" something?

The Constitution uses the word "PROMOTE", not "PROHIBIT".

I somehow knew you wouldn't be able to 'fess up to the mistake. Much better to be humiliated.

Do you understand the concept of our Constitution, if something is not specifically allowed to the federal government it is prohibited. That is the principle behind enumerated powers.

That's not what they thought when they ratified it: The Federalist #44

Fed 44 deals with Section 10, didn't see anything related to this discussion. Although I will admit I scanned it quickly, if you think I over looked something, you might want to quote it.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

OKTexas -

Do you understand the different between a document that "explicity prohibits" something, and a document that "permits" something?

The Constitution uses the word "PROMOTE", not "PROHIBIT".

I somehow knew you wouldn't be able to 'fess up to the mistake. Much better to be humiliated.

Do you understand the concept of our Constitution, if something is not specifically allowed to the federal government it is prohibited. That is the principle behind enumerated powers.

Actually you are confused lol it happens. If something (a power) is not specifically allowed to the federal government, then that power resides within the State. 10th Amendment

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas -

Do you understand the different between a document that "explicity prohibits" something, and a document that "permits" something?

The Constitution uses the word "PROMOTE", not "PROHIBIT".

I somehow knew you wouldn't be able to 'fess up to the mistake. Much better to be humiliated.

Do you understand the concept of our Constitution, if something is not specifically allowed to the federal government it is prohibited. That is the principle behind enumerated powers.

Actually you are confused lol it happens. If something (a power) is not specifically allowed to the federal government, then that power resides within the State. 10th Amendment

Not confused at all, we were discussing federal powers and my contention that the Constitution does not provide for federal funding of scientific research. The 10th Amendment argument is reserved in case some trys to say the power is implied elsewhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well wise ass the Constitution explicitly prohibits funding for the sciences and useful arts, see Article 1, Section 8, Caluse 8.

Now feel free to spin it any way you want.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Interesting. Are you trying to argue that "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" somehow gives Congress the power to fund science and art?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try reading it for yourself, the feds are limited to promoting the sciences and useful arts by providing patents and copyright only. It's very straight forward sentence, even you should be able to understand it. That is the ONLY ENUMERATED POWER on the subject.

Well, this is the sentence, which you claim "explicitly prohibits funding" .

'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;'

If you are smart, you will admit that you got this wrong and apologise. If you are stupid, you'll descend into a tantrum.

Is this the start of a tantrum on your part?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if something is not specifically allowed

The constitution reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,"

Hence, it is not "explicity prohibited".

Wow, OKTexas, you come across as really, really smart on this thread.

...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

[Agit8r]

1

do you understand the concept of our constitution, if something is not specifically allowed to the federal government it is prohibited. That is the principle behind enumerated powers.

that's not what they thought when they ratified it: the federalist #44

fed 44 deals with section 10, didn't see anything related to this discussion. Although i will admit i scanned it quickly, if you think i over looked something, you might want to quote it.

the sixth and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest.

1. Of these the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof."

few parts of the constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the constitution, can only mean that the form of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?

There are four other possible methods which the constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not expressly delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.

Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of confederation, it is evident that the new congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "expressly" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction. It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of confederation, has been or can be executed by congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of construction or implication. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not expressly granted.

had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the particular powers, which are the means of attaining the object of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.

had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, not necessary or proper, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made.

Had the constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. no axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the union.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And......we have another. There is no end the the number of brilliant Constitutional scholars who grace these pages. How lucky can we be. And here...two of them think that the founders were interested in prohibiting national interest in the arts and sciences!

If it doesn't specifically say that federal money can be spent on something....it means that federal money must not be spent on it. This is the lofty logic that we are up against.