[Petronski]

It seems ludicrous to me to suggest that constitutional authority for NASA cannot be found solely in national defense, even if the original legislation founding NASA does not site it.

But we’re dealing with nuts who believe the Air Force is unconstitutional because the Constitution did not foresee and specifically mention flying machines.

[wideawake]

But we’re dealing with nuts who believe the Air Force is unconstitutional because the Constitution did not foresee and specifically mention flying machines.

I will say it again - the people who most vocally claim to be the Constitution's defenders simultaneously champion an interpretation of the Constitution that is narrow, straightjacketed, and completely unknown in US history.

They interpret the Constitution using the method of the Constitution's enemies, the Anti-Federalists.

They claim to be friends of the Constitution yet they parrot the anti-Constitutional arguments of the Anti-Federalists, treasonous cranks like Lysander Spooner and traitors like Alexander Stephens - people who actively fought against the Constitution and who sought to dismember the Union.

[ejonesie22]

It is simpler than all that. Look into how many patented devices have come from NASA efforts. Velcro, Teflon, certain processors, numerous material science advances. So it is easy to see that in making NASA both from a defense perspective (aeronautical research that is used in defense) as well as it’s civilian role it fulfills the basic mandate of sustaining patented research.

Old argument from way before Paul, but believe it or not it was made at the height of the space age. If we had these folks in charge we’d be speaking Russian.