nuclear space engine - would it work ??

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Read beyond the Preamble.


No need. The Preamble lays out the purpose of the Constitution.

The rest is implementation. Unless you are talking about Amendments.

I don't know of a Space Exploration amendment. Doesn't even appear
under the Commerce clauses previously sited. Because, space travel
wasn't possible at the time of drafting? But back then it would have
been known as Ether travel.

As Bob K. points out if you *want* Space Exploration as part of the
Constitution, better get rolling on that amendment... I'm sure New
Mexico will ratify it. ;-)

I think your best shot is the "promote the general welfare" clause
in the Preamble...

Dave

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:12:16 -0500, David Spain wrote
(in article AbOYg.1465$qv6.122@trnddc06):


Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Read beyond the Preamble.


No need.

Yes, a great deal of need. Constitutional law isn't nearly as simple
you seem to think it is.

--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:12:16 -0500, David Spain wrote
(in article AbOYg.1465$qv6.122@trnddc06):


Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Read beyond the Preamble.


No need.

Yes, a great deal of need. Constitutional law isn't nearly as simple
you seem to think it is.

--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

They're just a bunch of Constitutional funadamentalists, or perhaps
Samaritans. (The Samaritans follow an offshoot of Judiasm which holds that
everything after the five books of Moses is not canonical, and who do not
aknowledge the vast body of Jewish case law. So, for example, they will eat
milk with meat, since the Torah only says "thou shalt not boil a kid in its
mother's milk")

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:17:04 -0500, Ami Silberman wrote
(in article ):

They're just a bunch of Constitutional funadamentalists,

Yeah, I know. Hence my decision not to engage in any real substantive
debate about the issue. I'll leave that to the Supreme Court and any
other Article III courts of record. ;-)


--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
Yes, a great deal of need. Constitutional law isn't nearly as simple
you seem to think it is.

Yet it seems to be the class the professors most want to teach.

WHen I was in Albuquerque, a couple of local activist called themselves
"Constutional scholars". They never seemed to be able to provide any
verifiable details for what they said- like so many kooks, they were under
the mistaken impression that repetition constituted evidence.

One of them ran for sheriff of Bernalillo county; she had a cable access
show I caught one time during her campaign. SHe was going on about the UN
black helicopters and the New World Order. I just couldn't see how any of
that had anything to do with being sheriff in New Mexico.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:12:16 -0500, David Spain wrote
(in article AbOYg.1465$qv6.122@trnddc06):

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Read beyond the Preamble.

No need.

Yes, a great deal of need. Constitutional law isn't nearly as simple
you seem to think it is.


Nor is it applicable to this argument as you seem to think it is.

US Statutory Code seems to be plenty adequate.

That is not part of the Constitution, nor need it be.

Dave

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:58:14 -0500, Steve Hix wrote
See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 2451(b):

"The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the
United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical
and space activities. The Congress further declares that such
activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a

[...snipped for brevity...]

Law as enacted. As with many laws the reasoning behind it is faulty.
Congress needs to review its declarations to see if they make sense
in the 21st Century.

Statues can be revised without amending the Constitution.

Dave

Ami Silberman wrote:
They're just a bunch of Constitutional funadamentalists, or perhaps
Samaritans.

[...snipped... something about mother's milk]

I didn't drag the Constitution into this...

The Constitution enables the Statutory Codes that deal with Space Exploration.
That's the only role the Constitution plays in this *argument*? If that's what
it is...

I'd have to read the US Statutory Code to determine *why* we have a "Space Program",
not the Constitution.

The reasoning behind those Congressional declarations is faulty. The enacted statutes
require revision for the 21st century. NASA should be replaced with NACA.

Dave

In article ,
Robert Kolker wrote:
Herb Schaltegger wrote:


Read your Constitutional history and jurisprudence before you make such
absurd statements.

How is congress authorized to fund manned space programs? Do tell us.

Here are the powers of Congress verbetim:

SNIP


To provide and maintain a navy;

SNIP

Now find a rocket ship in there.

A navy can be all kind of ships. If you don't exclude
uU-boot's You can 't exclude space ships.


Bob Kolker


Groetjes Albert

P.S. Marx explained that capitalism are bound to spend huge
unproductive amounts of capital or suffer a crisis Better on a Mars
mission than carpet bombing yet another third world country.

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:26:33 -0500, David Spain wrote
(in article t9QYg.4922$NK5.2710@trnddc08):

The reasoning behind those Congressional declarations is faulty.

It would easy as hell to amend them to reference the Commerce Clause.
It was huge news when the Supremes decided it WASN'T a good enough
rationale for the "Gun Free School Zones" law - first time in recent
memory (perhaps ever - it's been awhile since I looked at that issue)
that the Commerce Clause was deemed insufficient.

--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net