Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there is some confusion here. Privatize the public school system NOT the federal Department of Education. That doesn't make any sense.
.
the purpose of the federal government (as to the DOE) is to set standards..not be a do'er (worker)
and yes it makes sense
the federal government sets a federal standard..which the states HAVE to abide by, can even add to (add to a regulation, not subtract from), which the LOCAL governments (school districts) (at either county or town level , which ever they are devided into) TO INCLUDE PRIVATE will abide by.
ie the federal government will set a reading standard...little johnny must read at a 5th grade level before he can graduate high school......the state can ADD to it and say he must read at at least a 6th grade level before he can graduate...the local entity (government or private) will comply with the state law since it is a HIGHER standard than the federal
there is no need to have a federal DOE at the levels we have,,,to much unneeded red tape
the purpose of the federal government (as to the DOE) is to set standards..not be a do'er (worker)
and yes it makes sense
the federal government sets a federal standard..which the states HAVE to abide by, can even add to (add to a regulation, not subtract from), which the LOCAL governments (school districts) (at either county or town level , which ever they are devided into) TO INCLUDE PRIVATE will abide by.
ie the federal government will set a reading standard...little johnny must read at a 5th grade level before he can graduate high school......the state can ADD to it and say he must read at at least a 6th grade level before he can graduate...the local entity (government or private) will comply with the state law since it is a HIGHER standard than the federal
there is no need to have a federal DOE at the levels we have,,,to much unneeded red tape
Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to establish education standards? Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to be involved with education in any way, shape, or form?
The federal Department of Education must be completely and utterly abolished, eliminated, eradicated, purged, and/or liquidated. To do anything less and still claim to support the US Constitution would be hypocrisy and a lie.
Either we hold the federal government accountable to the limited powers granted to them by the States, or we quit pretending that this is a nation based upon the rule of law and acknowledge that the federal government is all-powerful and can do whatever it pleases, for good or ill. There is no middle-ground here.
Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to establish education standards? Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to be involved with education in any way, shape, or form?
I believe this is covered under Article 1, Section 8
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;
AND under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
As you probably already know, these are the "General Welfare" clause and the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which serve as the basis for every law made by Congress that isn't part of Congress' enumerated powers.
The Department of Education was established by the passage of The Department of Education Act of 1979 and its role was expanded by another Act of Congress, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
To say that the US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to be involved in education is to say that Congress doesn't have the authority to make any laws other than the ones enumerated by Article 1 Section 8. I suppose you can debate this point, but you would be debating with James Madison, one of the original writers of the Constitution and with Alexander Hamilton, who is considered to be the first constitutional lawyer.
It is becoming obvious that the only way to settle the argument about whether congress has the right to make laws pertaining to veterans benefits, education, or any other function of our society is to scrap the constitution and start over. Maybe come up with something a little less confusing to people.
I believe this is covered under Article 1, Section 8
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;
The power is "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" for the purpose of "[paying] the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It is NOT the power to do whatever they please. Such a power would completely nullify everything else in the US Constitution because that one power would give Congress unlimited power. Obviously, that was never the intent behind the clause, and the Supreme Court agrees.
Quote:
If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
Source: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
The old "General Welfare Clause" canard is a joke and no sane court would ever allow such a twisted argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anzobrist
AND under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Obviously the phrase "the foregoing powers" escaped your grasp. Clause 18 specifically refers to the previously defined 17 powers that preceded it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anzobrist
As you probably already know, these are the "General Welfare" clause and the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which serve as the basis for every law made by Congress that isn't part of Congress' enumerated powers.
I know Congress repeatedly uses these fallacious excuses when enacting legislation that they cannot justify any other way. And I also know that no court has ever accepted this bogus argument, as the decision I provided proves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anzobrist
The Department of Education was established by the passage of The Department of Education Act of 1979 and its role was expanded by another Act of Congress, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
I am well aware of the history of the federal Department of Education and the usurpation of state powers by Congress. Which is why it must be abolished, so the states can once again regain the authority they had before a Democrat controlled Congress illegally stole it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anzobrist
To say that the US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to be involved in education is to say that Congress doesn't have the authority to make any laws other than the ones enumerated by Article 1 Section 8.
Incorrect. To say that the US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to be involved in ANYTHING beyond those powers enumerated within the US Constitution (including those powers specified beyond just Article I, Section 8) is both accurate and supported by the courts. Even the US Constitution itself emphasizes this fact:
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Source: 10th Amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by anzobrist
I suppose you can debate this point, but you would be debating with James Madison, one of the original writers of the Constitution and with Alexander Hamilton, who is considered to be the first constitutional lawyer.
Madison certainly was involved in the original draft of the US Constitution, and he was fully aware that the document was a limitation on federal powers, not a blank check for government to do whatever it pleases. But Hamilton was a joke. He stormed out of the Constitutional Convention at the end of June 1787 in a huff and took the New York delegation with him after the other delegates refused to even consider Hamilton's proposed constitutional monarch insanity. Aaron Burr did the US a great service by shooting that arrogant prick.
the purpose of the federal government (as to the DOE) is to set standards..not be a do'er (worker)
and yes it makes sense
the federal government sets a federal standard..which the states HAVE to abide by, can even add to (add to a regulation, not subtract from), which the LOCAL governments (school districts) (at either county or town level , which ever they are devided into) TO INCLUDE PRIVATE will abide by.
ie the federal government will set a reading standard...little johnny must read at a 5th grade level before he can graduate high school......the state can ADD to it and say he must read at at least a 6th grade level before he can graduate...the local entity (government or private) will comply with the state law since it is a HIGHER standard than the federal
there is no need to have a federal DOE at the levels we have,,,to much unneeded red tape
Wait........the privatization of the Federal DOE did not make any sense. I was talking about the privatization of the public education system. That would fall under the, that is insane.
No, no privatization of education. This is why, schools that are privatized get to pick and choose their students (Like how Louisiana got a good smack down recently). Public schools have to take everybody. They have to take the kids whose entire IEP is to pick up a pencil and move it across the desk. That's the entirety of it. They have to take your ODD, ADHD and Bipolar kids. Homeless kids. Even now, special schools, like charter schools don't have to stay open permanently. They can say that they are teaching to the test, out loud and in public, where they currently have the general public bamboozled with this....hey, hey, hey, your teaching to the test to public school teachers. Well, you didn't really give them a choice. YOU DID NOT GIVE THEM A CHOICE.
You want it in the hands of the teachers? No, not really. Otherwise, you would have been listening for the past 30 some odd years. Instead, it is far easier to hand it over to corps, to make it for profit, even though a lot of your problems stem from the design of schools to get people ready for FACTORY WORK.
And when the federal money stops, and it will, states will have no choice but to fund all those programs for themselves. Like special needs. Well, guess what? States don't like that and all of those programs will be gone. Because the entire name of the game is to force public schools into privatization.
What you are headed for on this path is to pay a corporation that will be tax exempt an exhuberant amount of money to do exactly what the corporations are doing now. Like stealing people blind in the name of testing. Like, books. Like failing their contracts with the public school systems as it is.
And this will not raise the critical thinking level of students. It will limit them-----like pledging allegience to capitalism.
Why don't you drop the major testing and stop with the inclusion and stop holding teachers by the neck. And stop pushing for known failed programs like abstinance only. Epic failure and millions of dollars wasted to find out what was already known. Why not drop grants for television shows that are not used in the classroom? No lie-I allowed my kid to watch a show called Dragon Tales. Is it educational? No. There is another show called something like Read between the Lions or something like that. Cute? Yes. Necessary?
Why put this under Social Services? Rand doesn't have a plan. Unless, he knows already that many states are privatizing social services. Even though, we have documentation that proves that this does not work. In Texas, in Florida, in Indiana. Education is not McDonalds and you cannot make it into an assembly line.
Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to establish education standards? Where does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to be involved with education in any way, shape, or form?
The federal Department of Education must be completely and utterly abolished, eliminated, eradicated, purged, and/or liquidated. To do anything less and still claim to support the US Constitution would be hypocrisy and a lie.
Either we hold the federal government accountable to the limited powers granted to them by the States, or we quit pretending that this is a nation based upon the rule of law and acknowledge that the federal government is all-powerful and can do whatever it pleases, for good or ill. There is no middle-ground here.
Quote:
the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to ap- [297 U.S. 1, 66] propriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. 12 We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
This is also Butler. You see, there is a reason that the Agricultural Act of 1933 was struck down as unconstitutional.
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
To say that the US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to be involved in ANYTHING beyond those powers enumerated within the US Constitution (including those powers specified beyond just Article I, Section 8) is both accurate and supported by the courts.
What court case do you cite that supports your assertion? There have been many laws struck down by the Supreme Court on the basis that they are somehow contrary to the courts original interpretation of what was meant by the "General Welfare" but where has the Supreme Court explicitly limited the powers of congress as stated by your assertion?
You cite the 10th amendment but I'm suspicious that this may be a misapplication of that particular citation.
What I find most compelling is the history of the United States. We are living in a country governed by laws passed by a representative congress, acting in accordance with a constitution that is being safeguarded by a supreme court. It seems to me that the question of the power of Congress to make laws such as the law creating the ED was settled long ago.
It's probably personal prejudice because I tend to trust our current system of government (even though I dislike many of the individuals currently holding power.) But be that as it may, I found Pandamonium's reponse to your post to be pretty compelling.
I should state for the record that I'm pretty much in over my head when it comes to debating constitutional law, and I'm really appreciative of the opportunity to delve into these issues. I never thought that my question about the Tea Party's view on veteran's benefits would evolve into a debate on the powers of congress to make laws. Those that debate can get irritated at what they perceive as the other's blindness, but I'm hopefully not the only one who feels strengthened when my argument is either vindicated or shown to have a hole or two.
It seems to me that there is a small but vocal minority that HATE living in the United States. Because they don't like paying their taxes; they don't appreciate having to obey laws that promote the general welfare over their own personal gain; and because they feel threatened when their sacred cows are skewered by cultural evolution;they burn with a seething resentment that leads them to try to justify their anger by latching on to issues that were settled by the founding fathers or the Civil War, like whether Congress can make a law that promotes the General Welfare.
Personally I think it's okay to disagree and to think that a given Act of Congress is a stupid mistake and to sue the federal government if you're being adversely affected by a law that hasn't been tested in court. And its okay to question the wisdom of the outcome of a reasoned debate that occurred long ago (especially as an academic exercise.) What worries me, is when that small minority of individuals that hate America as it is flatly refuse to accept the decisions handed down by the courts. They don't care about our history and begin taking quotes out of context in order to "prove" their point (maybe this applies to me, but I don't really think so, I love America and I think by and large were headed in the right direction though maybe our course could be altered a little here or there.) The true America Haters only hear the side of the argument that agrees with their point of view, and then, when the final decision of the court is pointed out to them, they simply say "well, the court was obviously wrong and possibly corrupt." Where do they go from there? Protest? Civil disobedience? Bomb making? Simply "voting the bums out" doesn't really do very much when you're talking about settled law.
I agree that the power to levy taxes, duties, imposts, etc. extends beyond just those enumerated powers under Section 8. I never disputed that point. Congress has numerous other powers beyond those listed in Section 8, and in order to pay for the execution of those powers Congress must levy taxes.
For example, under Article III Congress has the power to establish "inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Under Article IV "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Also under Article IV, "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 gave Congress the power to tax for all these purposes in addition to those other powers listed under Section 8.
However, at no time has the courts ever construed that Congress has unlimited power and authority to do anything is pleases for the "General Welfare." The courts, and the US Constitution itself under the 10th Amendment, have stated emphatically that the US Constitution is a limitation on the power of the federal government.
Since education is one of those powers not granted to Congress by the US Constitution, and not prohibited by the US Constitution to the States, the power to regulate education falls exclusively with the States and not the federal government.
I agree that the power to levy taxes, duties, imposts, etc. extends beyond just those enumerated powers under Section 8. I never disputed that point. Congress has numerous other powers beyond those listed in Section 8, and in order to pay for the execution of those powers Congress must levy taxes.
For example, under Article III Congress has the power to establish "inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Under Article IV "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Also under Article IV, "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 gave Congress the power to tax for all these purposes in addition to those other powers listed under Section 8.
However, at no time has the courts ever construed that Congress has unlimited power and authority to do anything is pleases for the "General Welfare." The courts, and the US Constitution itself under the 10th Amendment, have stated emphatically that the US Constitution is a limitation on the power of the federal government.
Since education is one of those powers not granted to Congress by the US Constitution, and not prohibited by the US Constitution to the States, the power to regulate education falls exclusively with the States and not the federal government.
That's a pretty good point about education being a States Rights issue. However, you seem to be ignoring what what was written in the 1936 supreme court ruling about how the court agreed with the Hamiltonian view of the powers of the federal government, but that the issue at hand in that particular supreme court ruling had nothing to do with general welfare, but was a matter of state sovereignty (only states had the power to set agricultural policy)
I'd say that the federal government has no right to dictate to individual states what they may or may not teach in their schools, should have no right to administer federal standardized tests, etc. But does have the right to raise funds to support education as a matter of general welfare and by extension has the right create an apparatus for administering those funds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
