When you see something coming down the pike that you really don’t want to deal with, you can first try changing the subject before you simply refuse to respond. Instead of either, let’s try staying more or less on topic.
”You asked a simple direct question, I gave a simple direct answer. Anything else you read into it came from your own imagination.”
A direct question surely. But, hardly simple. The fundamental law of a government may be, and probably should be, written in simple and direct language, but the concepts and understandings it defines can be anything but simple. And, I don’t need imagination, merely experience, to understand that a gapping contextual hole in a propounded principle must be viewed with suspicion at least until a clarification is provided. You had interjected a constitutional fragment into a dispute over the issue; Science - a religion or no. The cited constitutional language left doubt that it was relevant to the issue. Providing the proper context removed all doubt, establishing indeed that it had no relevance.”
I did not know that! /sarcasm”
Now how could I possibly know that you did know that the constitutional text you quoted had entirely to do with the right to property when you interjected it into a dispute over science, religion, and education?
In any event I’m glad to hear that your opinion is that the Feds have no constitutional power to fund or regulate education. On that point, at least, we are in agreement. That that point might suggest to you certain other conclusions, or at least some other points meriting examination, is probably too much to expect.
- The subject was originally whether science is a religion. You were the one who introduced the enumerated power over education into our discussion (post #366), which necessarily raises the Commerce Clause issue. Now it looks like you're chlckening out by dodging my question on the same power.
You had interjected a constitutional fragment into a dispute over the issue; Science - a religion or no.
You asked by what means Congress could promote science. I gave you a complete and accurate answer. You cannot justify reading anything else into it.
Now how could I possibly know that you did know that the constitutional text you quoted had entirely to do with the right to property
You could have had the common courtesy to ask.
when you interjected it into a dispute over science, religion, and education?
There was no discussion of education in my posts, or in the post I originally replied to, until YOU interjected it. You played that card, and it looks like you're running away from a challenge.