Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Dec 24, 2010 at 5:43am
Sysyphus suggested this topic for our upcoming debate on Sunday. It's not quite the right resolution. The idea, after all, is to resolve one of the major dilemmas of our time once and for all, and this isn't really a dilemma of our time. Still, I'm curious to know what the arguments would look like.
Honestly, the question had never once occurred to me. Everything in me wants to say, "Yes, because that was so cool," but perhaps this is not an intellectually defensible argument.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
I think it might be useful. I hope though that readers who didn't live through the period will familiarize themselves with the political implications of the landings in terms of the Cold War, and how the landings made Reagan's SDI credible - which was a big nail in the Soviet coffin.
Two articles of interest: Paul Spudis, Apollo: An American Victory in the Cold War , and the SciAm interview with Segei Khrushchev.
Oct '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
It is hard to find a time, even at the earliest times of this country, that the adventurous and inquiring nature that characterizes the American people wasn't expressed through some level of government involvement. From the funding of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the westward expansion all the way to the present. My Libertarian leanings tell me that these activities, including the moon landings, are not the purview of government. Perhaps so. But in a republican democracy, the true character and passion of the people will express itself in many ways... like going to the moon.
Governance is primarily about maintaining order, but the collective desire to undertake larger than life adventures perhaps can find legitimacy... at least until the vested bureaucratic and commercial interests gain momentum. Which is the greater loss? Stop the government from gaining power in these areas, or retreat into risk avoiding humdrum?
May '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,... and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare...
Think of the welfare you got from the moon landing...
Tang alone made it all worth it.
Oct '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
I always thought of the early space program and the Apollo program as a component of our national defense. When the Russians launched Sputnik, the worry was that they would be dropping bombs on us from outer space. The moon was also thought of as a potential base from which to launch an attack.
Jun '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
The moon-landings were equivalent to Teddy Roosevelt's sending the "Great White Fleet" around the world in 1907 - a "peaceful" demonstration that we have technology and power that the ordinary citizen, either here or abroad, just could not fathom without a visual. The military implications did not have to be underscored to be understood. The US's national prestige aka "soft power" was greatly enhanced by both, especially the moon landing.
The moon landing was also a brilliant managerial tool to focus and inspire needed developments in aerospace technology for national defense -- the deference between a starting a rigorous exercise program vs a commitment to compete in the Boston Marathon on April 18, 2011
Edited on Dec 24, 2010 at 7:43amJul '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
My "where is that in the Constitution" finger is itching.
But what Pilgrim said.
Jun '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
I'd suggest some clear boundaries if this is the debate resolution. You can ask if the space program (moon landings, et. al.) are a legitimate exercise of federal power, or whether it should be in the domain of private enterprise. But if you don't bound it, the discussion will center on whether there should be a space program at all, or whether it is simply a waste of money and resources.
There are two predominant ways to view the latter. Some folks believe we should keep our feet planted firmly on the ground. These are the folks who, most likely, never would have left the east coast for the newly opened western territories and the great frontier. Other folks yearn for new frontiers, wherever they can be found, including small incremental steps to the stars. Neither is "right," and neither is "wrong." Just different impulses. A debate on the space program almost always ends up here, on different views of the value and worth of the venture.
Based on the initial wording of the resolution, I suggest a premise that allows for a space program, with the debate on whether it should be a governmental or private venture.
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
You do realize how much this logic could be used to justify, don't you?
I want to be persuaded that this was a fully legitimate function of the federal government, I really do. And I'm also willing to say that even if it wasn't, so what. It was one of the greatest achievements of humanity; you'd have to be an insane small-government zealot to argue with that kind of success. The ends justified the means.
But honestly, if we hadn't done it, and if you suggested it to me now, I'd say you were out of your mind.
Oct '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Doing it out of concern that the Soviets would drop nuclear bombs from outer space onto our heads, yes; doing it as a managerial and technological exercise...definitely no.
Jun '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Uh, Kenneth?
May '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Wow. Interesting question. I think the question would be much harder if there wasn't a Cold War in progress. But the same question applies to all of NASA's planetary probes. I need to think about this...
Sep '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Perhaps the better question is whether the movie Capricorn One was true.
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
I know. I'm getting a little wrapped around the axle on it too.
I think we need to be honest and admit that it's a great, big, huge exception to principles that otherwise serve us well.
May '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Any exercise of federal power is legitimate if it is determined to be in the national interest and it is something that the people can not do for themselves.
Dec '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
In that that it was in large part a race with the Soviets to both claim/occupy the (military) high ground and establish technological superiority in that domain, yes.
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Any exercise of federal power?
May '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
What can the people not do for themselves? Get to the moon, build interstates, sewer systems, defend the realm.
And I include the business community into the definition of "the people." The government should not build cars because Ford does.
Jul '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
I'm stunned. Aghast.
May '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
Kenneth
I'm stunned. Aghast. · Dec 24 at 10:46am
Perhaps I need to add the caveat that all that is permissible within the Constitution.
It's the George Will concept - Deliver the mail, defend the shores and get the hell out of the way.
Jul '10
Re: Were the Moon Landings a Legitimate Exercise of Federal Power?
I am glad, heck honored, that Claire picked this one for discussion. The public vs. private space program question is a separate one, I would be happy to play in that one, too. This happens to be a resolution I argued frequently at a stage of my life with strict constructionists. There is an argument from a strict constructionist perspective on this, but most of the constructionists I encountered started from the assumption that there wasn't. outstripp was in the right neighborhood, but the welfare clause is slippery and dangerous. I argue from article 8, "...provide for the common Defence."
And I really, really hope our lawyerly contributors will take an interest.
For context: In the mid-1950s, well before the Sputnik scare, plans were developed in the United States and the Soviet Union to establish a manned nuclear missile base on the Moon. A PR version of the American plan even made it into the press at the time.
Also: well over 90% of the mineral wealth of the Solar System is not terrestrial. And the vast majority that is terrestrial is not accessible due to extremes of heat and pressure.
More in a bit.