This is designed to protect the individual from tyranny of the majority, including scientists who don’t subscribe to mainstream scientific theories (Galileo), engineers who want to make a living developing better technologies instead of having them be outlawed (fossil fuels), and doctors who wish to treat their patients as they deem fit and necessary without any fear of the government telling them how they can or cannot practice their vocation. Suggested wording is as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an absolute establishment of any scientific theory, prohibiting the free inquiry therein; or abridging the freedom of technological innovation; or the right of the people practically to apply the natural sciences to preserve and enhance human life.”
Return to The Plan for Reawakening America
Tags: amendment
July 15, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
How about prohibiting federal monies from being used in the pursuit of science?
July 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
Jeremy,
The absolute prohibition of federal monies being used in the pursuit of science would violate the spirit of a particular clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states:
The literal sense of this clause is to institute patent and copyright protection to individuals (and the institutions to which those individuals willfully transfer those protections). But I think that the spirit of this clause is to protect the realm of natural science as a separate and sovereign cultural authority, not to be interfered with by any other realm, particularly the realm of Government. This was an extremely wise and far-seeing thing to do, as the United States overtook all other cultures in the natural sciences and technological arts in just the first century of its existence, and was the pioneering culture advancing scientific understanding far beyond anything previously known to humanity in its second century.
It is only in this our third century that I see the realm of science and the freedom of scientific inquiry being in danger of interference from the federal government. Examples abound: the current attempt to nationalize the practice of medicine, enshrining the unproven (I might even say disproven) theory of human-initiated climate change in law, and the dark heritage of how the theory of evolution has influenced government policy, including such things as eugenics, abortion, racism and other assaults on human life and dignity. This is why we need to make protection of the realm of science from federal infringement explicit with a constitutional amendment, as stated above: if we don’t, the outside-of-the-box thinking that is the source of all scientific advancement will eventually be quenched in the United States.
From the perspective of the federal government, I think that this American tradition of protecting science against external interference made some amazing accomplishments possible that have preserved Liberty and advanced the human condition. The United States was the first country to invent the atomic bomb, the threatened use of which has preserved liberty on the North American continent (and elsewhere) and largely kept the peace on this planet ever since. Just imagine how history would have taken a much darker turn if the Third Reich or the Soviet Union had figured out the bomb first! The moon shots of the 60′s and 70′s, and the space program in general have also done much to advance many different scientific fields further than they ever have been advanced before. These are the most prominent examples of federally-funded scientific endeavors that I can think of, though I’m sure there are others. An absolute prohibition would significantly hobble our culture from achieving further scientific discoveries and advances that can only be achieved on a national scale.
Where I could agree with you is when federal money is sent to the states with strings or requirements attached, for scientific endeavors or anything else, really. This is just asking for trouble, in terms of the checks and balances between the states and the federal government, as the events of this year to date has shown. I think that there needs a constitutional amendment absolutely prohibiting both federally unfunded mandates dictated to the states, and mandates attached to any money sent to the states. Put simply, federal money should not come with any mandate for the states, and mandates without money should be totally eliminated.
This necessity rose in my mind in connection with educational funding, but with this question of yours, I see now that the necessity of banning federal mandates to states — both funded and unfunded — should be universal, not particular. I’ll definitely be adding that to our list. Any suggestions concerning verbage are always welcome.
Thanks for the feedback. Please feel free to continue.
Ben W.