On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
[Charles Platt is senior writer for WIRED Magazine and an author and former science fiction editor when he's not enjoying his "retirement" in northern Arizona. I don't know the answer to Charles' question, but perhaps my distinguished readers will?]
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Cc: <cp@panix.com> Subject: stem cell speech
Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy.
I have, for many years. Check the archives. I've also claimed that strictly speaking the Air Force, NASA, NSF, NOAA, etc. are actually unconstitutional. Why? Because the 10th requires some sort of deligate (at least a sentence fragment) in the Constitution for all laws. And there ain't one for any of these efforts. [Note: I also do not suggest they be shutdown, only that a discussion of existance and suitable amendments be created. Especially NASA, I believe strongly that a federaly mandated support level via amendment is in their best interest. At least they'd have a guaranteed minimum. ] -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------