Stem Cell Research According to the Constitution

[Decagon]

So I have this debate thingy (it's more like a class argument) tomorrow, about embryonic stem cell research. I have everything ready and I know what I need to do and most of what I need to say, and I have all the items needed for the points on the assignment, except what the Constitution and court cases say about stem cell research. I can't seem to find anything on the Internet that clearly shows the Constitutions stance on stem cell research, does anyone know where I could find proof that embryonic stem cell research can (or cannot) be legally funded by the government based entirely on the Constitution?

Also, it would be sort of nice if you guys could give me some tips so I could actually win the debate (I'm debating against the teacher and some girl).

[Seranthor]

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...aureates/2012/

the Nobel prize winners found a way to program adult stem cells to work like embryonic... given that, I think you might end up toast.

Given my personal view of the Constitution then I cant find an reason for the government to embryonic stem cell research.

[Elegiac]

The Constitution is silent on the matter of stem cell research, and there have been no Supreme Court rulings as regarding it, either

[starlord]

the constitution doesnt say anything on stem cell research.

[Decagon]

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...aureates/2012/

the Nobel prize winners found a way to program adult stem cells to work like embryonic... given that, I think you might end up toast.

Given my personal view of the Constitution then I cant find an reason for the government to embryonic stem cell research.

Probably, but I still should try to win, I assume embryonic are more efficient and programming adult stem cells is unfeasible, so I can just go off that.

[Sunseeker]

I don't think the constitution can really be for or against embryonic stem-cell research, save perhaps tearing them from a wanted unborn fetus.

[rawdude]

The use of adult stem cells has had more success than using embryonic. Why bother to try to push for embryonic stem cells, when adult stem cells are just as, if not more effective, and it also saves unborn babies..

[Reeve]

If you're saying the government can't fund Embryonic Stem Cell research for whatever reason, and the opposition pulls out adult stem cells, you can call them for being out of the scope of the discussion, since the question clearly is referring to embryonic stem cells.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The Constitution does not say anything about stem cell research but in regard to its funding, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to fund scientific research (except for military research under the necessary and proper clause combined with national defense authorization of the federal government in the Constitution) and therefore under the Tenth Amendment that power is RESERVED for the states and not given to the federal government. While I’m sure the Supreme Court would throw out the Constitution as usual and say whatever in heck they want to say, that’s what the Constitution says directly relating to FEDERAL funding of it under the Constitution.

In short, federal funding of nonmilitary scientific research is unconstitutional therefore so is stem cell research (according to the Constitution, not according to the ever-changing opinion of the Supreme Court).

[Elegiac]

The use of adult stem cells has had more success than using embryonic. Why bother to try to push for embryonic stem cells, when adult stem cells are just as, if not more effective, and it also saves unborn babies..

The embryos being used for SCR are mostly IVF rejects that would be thrown out.

Also, adult stem cells cannot differentiate into certain tissues like embryonic stem cells can. Although I do need to read the science journals to see what those Nobel Prize winners managed.

---------- Post added 2012-10-10 at 02:52 PM ----------

The Constitution does not say anything about stem cell research but in regard to its funding, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to fund scientific research (except for military research under the necessary and proper clause combined with national defense authorization of the federal government in the Constitution) and therefore under the Tenth Amendment that power is RESERVED for the states. While I’m sure the Supreme Court would throw out the Constitution as usual and say whatever in heck they want to say, that’s what the Constitution says directly relating to FEDERAL funding of it under the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [to provide for the] general Welfare of the United States

- Article I, Section 8

The benefits of Stem Cell Research are almost certainly in line with the General Welfare.

[smelltheglove]

and it also saves unborn babies..

huh? do you think there is some group intentionally creating fetuses so they can farm the stem cells? wtf?

[DEATHETERNAL]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [to provide for the] general Welfare of the United States

- Article I, Section 8

The benefits of Stem Cell Research are almost certainly in line with the General Welfare.

If you interoperate the general welfare clause of the Constitution as such then the federal government has unlimited power to anything not specifically forbidden of it as anything can be said to be done for the general welfare. This is contrary to the rest of the Constitution and therefore an obviously invalid interpretation unless the entire rest of the Constitution is meaningless nonsense. An interpretation of one part of the Constitution is not possibly valid if it invalidates vast swaths of the rest of the Constitution.

[Elegiac]

If you interoperate the general welfare clause of the Constitution as such then the federal government has unlimited power to anything not specifically forbidden of it as anything can be said to be done for the general welfare. This is contrary to the rest of the Constitution and therefore an obviously invalid interpretation unless the entire rest of the Constitution is meaningless nonsense. An interpretation of one part of the Constitution is not possibly valid if it invalidates vast swaths of the rest of the Constitution.

The Constitution is, and was intended to be, elastic for precisely a situation such as this in which it is silent. Even Jefferson decided to liberally interpret the General Welfare clause during his presidency.

[Reeve]

If you interoperate the general welfare clause of the Constitution as such then the federal government has unlimited power to anything not specifically forbidden of it as anything can be said to be done for the general welfare. This is contrary to the rest of the Constitution and therefore an obviously invalid interpretation unless the entire rest of the Constitution is meaningless nonsense. An interpretation of one part of the Constitution is not possibly valid if it invalidates vast swaths of the rest of the Constitution.

Not entirely. They can "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" to provide for the general welfare. There are other clauses that provide for Congress doing a lot of the other things they do, particularly the Commerce Clause.

But yeah, if Congress wanted to attach a 1,000,000,000% tax on Stem Cell Research or some such, they could do it.

[Wells]

(according to the Constitution, not according to the ever-changing opinion of the Supreme Court).

Hey bro I have some bad news for you

[DEATHETERNAL]

The Constitution is, and was intended to be, elastic for precisely a situation such as this in which it is silent. Even Jefferson decided to liberally interpret the General Welfare clause during his presidency.

The Tenth Amendment eliminates a great deal of the elasticity that the Constitution had. You can't simply ignore the Tenth Amendment and its application to the case of federal funding without rending the Constitution not only super elastic, but elastic to the point of being meaningless as the federal government can do anything it wants for "the general welfare". I also don't care what any specific President chooses to do in their Presidency as they have a record of blatantly ignoring the Constitution.

Not entirely. They can "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" to provide for the general welfare. There are other clauses that provide for Congress doing a lot of the other things they do, particularly the Commerce Clause.

But yeah, if Congress wanted to attach a 1,000,000,000% tax on Stem Cell Research or some such, they could do it.

You are correct that they have the ability to create taxes, duties, imports, and excises and use that money to perform the powers given to the federal government which serve the common welfare. This has been taken instead to mean that the federal government can tax and then use the money for any reason whatsoever which is blatantly false as that gives the federal government unlimited power over the economy. As for the commerce clause, that clause is now trying to be applied to an individual who doesn't buy something. That act of not buying something is said to affect interstate commerce and that act of doing nothing somehow means the federal government can regulate any economic activity that individual does or doesn’t or never would have conducted in that area. The commerce clause is another clause like the general welfare clause that the federal government is attempting to use to say it can do anything when that is in blatant violation of the rest of the Constitution.

[Decagon]

The Constitution is silent on the matter of stem cell research, and there have been no Supreme Court rulings as regarding it, either

That really sucks. I guess I'm screwed on that, then.

[openair]

If you're saying the government can't fund Embryonic Stem Cell research for whatever reason, and the opposition pulls out adult stem cells, you can call them for being out of the scope of the discussion, since the question clearly is referring to embryonic stem cells.

Since when are viable alternatives out of scope of a real debate?

[Elegiac]

The Tenth Amendment eliminates a great deal of the elasticity that the Constitution had. You can't simply ignore the Tenth Amendment and its application to the case of federal funding without rending the Constitution not only super elastic, but elastic to the point of being meaningless as the federal government can do anything it wants for "the general welfare". I also don't care what any specific President chooses to do in their Presidency as they have a record of blatantly ignoring the Constitution.

It's not being ignored, because the General Welfare clause is an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment itself confirms the existence of implied powers.

Theoretically the Federal Government could ignore the Constitution if they so chose.

[Deleted]

The constitution is idiotic and needs to be revised. 12.000 deaths a year due to a 200 year old gun stupidity.