憲法164條的凍結，在我國有一定程度的爭議，而且贊成與反對「凍結」該一條文的學者、專家彼此之間有不同的看法；但是卻無清楚的論辨，至為可惜。 贊成凍結者認為憲法中教科文預算比例下限的規定，不啻是一種特權、產生預算排擠效應，並且有礙國家整體資源之合理分配與運用，又造成消化預算等浪費情形；同時對行政權與立法權造成限制，所以應該予以凍結。 此外，贊成凍結此一條文者也認為教科文預算的多寡和憲法的保障與否並無必然的關係；甚至認為此次凍結提案全由民間推動，並經國大代表通過，亦即符合民意與程序。還有「保障」已無時代意義，而且是一種恥辱，凡此種種，皆認定憲法164條應該凍結。 本文以贊成凍結者的理由為經，個人的研究心得當緯，分就上述意見一一探究，認為憲法164條不應凍結。

　　　　　A great number of controversies arise to some extent in our country as to "freezing" Constitution Article CLXIV. Educational researchers and scholars have different opinion on it. None, however, reaches a clear argument. Those in favor of freezing it consider the regulation in the Constitution for educational, scientific and cultural budget (ESC budget) is nothing more than a privilege, thus resulting in crowding-out effect of budget. Moreover, it will obstruct the reasonable allocation and implementation of whole resources, contribute to a wasteful state of "budget consumption," etc, and constrain the range of the right for legislation and administration meanwhile. Thus, it stands to reason that Article CLXIV should be frozen. In addition, those who approve of freezing it also regard ESC budget on the increase or decrease is not necessarily related to "Constitution guarantee." Furthermore, some are even of the opinion that since the freezing action was promoted by the civil, and passed by National Assembly delegates, it means the action is in accordance with the public opinion and democratic process. Besides, contemporary "guarantee" makes no senses, and it can be a shame otherwise. Obviously, all teh abovementioned takes it for granted that Article CLXIV is supposed to be frozen. This article challenges opinions in favor of freezing Article CLXIV and proposes some personal research findings. In conclusion, the author argures that Article CLXIV is not supposed to be frozen. Personal opinions are offered as follows.