ya wanna see some stoooopid?

[BT]

I'd love to see the evidence that our interstate system was facilitated as a military objective

It wasn't called  the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 for nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

And the federal government is still investing and improving on the backbone to the internet because military data, like everything else comprises more data and thus takes more bandwidth. And without that investment it would be unlikely they could control drones in real time at dial up speeds. And you do believe defense expenditures are constitutional, right?

[sirs]

Absolutely

A PC car however, is not

[BT]

Don't believe i ever made that claim.
Although i am sure there are military applications for hybrid transports.

[sirs]

As I said, I'm sure there are military "applications" for anything under the sun, with the proper amount of rationalization.  I'll leave that with the liberal left though, who find all sorts of things the Constitutiton never actually says, but with the proper amount of distortion and rationalization, they can find just about anything that the Fed should be using tax dollars for

[Christians4LessGvt]

BT are you claiming the gvt could basically fund any and every business
and claim "well it has a military application"?

They could start funding McDonalds franchises saying they are trying
to see how best to prepare meals for the soldiers?

The gvt could fund a bowling alley saying they
want to experiment on how best to entertain our troops?

The gvt could fund Walgreens because they could claim
"well we will learn how to run a pharmacy on a base"?

The gvt could fund barber shops claiming they would learn how to run
barber shops on a base or a ship?

The gvt could fund gun shops claiming they could
better learn how to store and order firearms?

Is there any limit BT?

[sirs]

My point exactly.  Well layed out, C.  Unless a program has been specifically layed out with a military objective and/or bids by companies that are attempting to fulfill a military ojective, merely claiming that there can be a military application is akin to a non-noted right to an abortion, based on a non noted right to privacy.  Heck, just throw it under the Commerce Clause, and now you have 2 constitutiotnal mandates applied, when you include possible military applications

[Xavier_Onassis]

In Afghanistan the military has been using solar power extensively, which makes good sense, because trucking in Diesel and gasoline by truck is both expensive and dangerous. If you could run a Hummer or some other vehicle on half or a third as much fuel, that would be a major boon to the campaign in both dollars and lives. A solar-powered drone could be flitting over the enemy for months.

So of COURSE PC vehicles could be quite significant and useful. The Army has been funding robotic vehicles for quite some time now.'

Imagine if John Galt's motor that runs on static electricity from the atmosphere could be invented! ( )

[BT]

BT are you claiming the gvt could basically fund any and every business
and claim "well it has a military application"?

No. and if you had read my replies you would see i never made that claim.

What i did say is funding research on programs like Arpanet and the manhattan project not only was constitutional but turned out to be excellent uses of taxpayer funds.

[sirs]

And what I, (and C by extension) has said, is that as long as tax payer funds are being applied towards those military objectives, whatever "applications" that may arise, if they are NOT directly military related, do NOT have a constitutional go ahead in spending oodles of tax payer dollars

[BT]

I'm not sure how you are connecting the funding of the Arpanet Project with spending oodles of taxpayer monies on non military related applications.

But i am sure the forum is eager for your explanation.

[sirs]

It was generated from here, all the way back in reply #7, in which the whole notion of what should and should not be funded per the Constitution, generated from.

Hope that helped your apparent eagerness for an answer, though a curory scrolling back could have worked just as well

[BT]

And your aptera response has what to do with Arpanet?

[Christians4LessGvt]

No. and if you had read my replies you would see i never made that claim.
What i did say is funding research on programs like Arpanet and the manhattan
project not only was constitutional but turned out to be excellent uses of taxpayer funds.

I did read your replies and still have the same question.....

BT where do we "draw the line"?

because all kinds of projects could be given cover by
claiming they have some sort of military or national interest?

[BT]

Where do we draw the line?

You shrink the size of the federal government to where it was pre-woodrow wilson.Abraham Lincoln.

[sirs]

Where do we draw the line?

Asked and answered multiple times already