News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or... by brookst on Friday January 31, 2025 @07:50AM (#42887153)
You’re verging into SovCit stuff here.

Article I, Section 8 says:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or... by eadmund on Friday January 31, 2025 @08:40AM (#42887532)
Yes, and then Article I, Section 8 goes on to explain what counts as the ‘common Defence and general Welfare’ when it enumerates the Congress’s powers.

That’s not Sovereign Citizen nonsense — it’s very basic constitutional law. Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example.

Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or... by rbanffy on Friday January 31, 2025 @11:34AM (#42889120)
> Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example

Rent control should be easy to fit within "general welfare".

Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or... by kristjansson on Friday January 31, 2025 @01:45PM (#42890368)
Congress not only _could_ control rents nationally, congress _has_ controlled rents nationally [1] and those controls survived the review of the court.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Price_Control_Act_of...

Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or... by yakz on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:18AM (#42887921)
The Supreme Court has decided what ‘the general welfare’ means, and it is not limited to the listed powers. This information is not difficult to find, as would be expected given the last 90ish years of spending that is obviously not limited to the list of powers.
Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or... by SalmonSnarker on Friday January 31, 2025 @09:32AM (#42888058)
> You’re verging into SovCit stuff here.

It's a reading of constitutional law that insists that the only thing that matters is what they can shallowly read in their pocket constitution, while totally ignoring most of the constitution itself and any of the surrounding court precedent. :)

Eadmund incorrectly notes "The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments", and cites the tenth amendment while asking "What’s the Constitutional basis for that law?"

Duh, the appointments clause in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause. :3

> Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers. The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with "broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise" of its more specific authorities. The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices. Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives. The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...