Did De Voss Lie to the Senate Hearing?

calamity · Jan 20, 2017

Gimmesometruth said:
Um, because, as the map shows, those states in the red just happen to be, by and large, the Old South.

I'm getting a bit sick of dealing with the people who obviously went to red state schools. That is for sure.

Gimmesometruth · Jan 20, 2017

calamity said:
I'm getting a bit sick of dealing with the people who obviously went to red state schools. That is for sure.

I don't blame them for where their parents lived, I blame them for not rising above their beginnings. I was lucky, I grew up in an upper middle class area of the Phx metro area that had well funded schools.

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
the general welfare clause is not a general empowerment clause-its only about taxing authority

The General Welfare Clause Gives Congress Unlimited Power?

The “general welfare” clause is used so often as a justification for bigger government that it is getting nauseating. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

i wouldn't call federal oversight of state and local educational standards "nauseating." it would be a real stretch to claim that this isn't a proper role of federal government.

Henrin · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
i wouldn't call federal oversight of state and local educational standards "nauseating." it would be a real stretch to claim that this isn't a proper role of federal government.

Ignoring that education started as a local concern and people fought like all hell when the state government wanted a say in it. To say that somehow a matter that started out as local issue was somehow intended to be under the authority of the federal government is a reach. It is even more of a reach when you realize that Jefferson warned against that very thing.

<alt>doxygen · Jan 20, 2017

DeVos is the worst of Trump's nominees. I'm starting to understand the connections that got her chosen, and it's not pretty. She is totally unqualified to serve in that office.

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

Harshaw said:
Ugh. You have not said why there needs to be national standard instead of state standards. You've only said there has to be one.

Is it because you think it's so obvious that it doesn't need explaining? It isn't.

i've answered the question multiple times already, and this is the last time that i will remind you of this.

Harshaw said:
The general welfare clause doesn't have a thing to do with education. It's about the general welfare of the political union, the cohesiveness and cooperation of states in the federal system. It's "the general welfare of the United States," and everywhere "United States" is used in the Constitution, it's referring to the federal government. It's not "general welfare" of the People.

i'd say that federal oversight of education definitely benefits the general welfare. here's what wikipedia has to say about the Department of Education :

Upgrading Education to cabinet level status in 1979 was opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However, many see the department as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The National Education Association supported the bill, while the American Federation of Teachers opposed it.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Establishment

either way, we're back to the age old "i don't like the politics of program x, so let's call it unconstitutional." meanwhile, significant portions of the Bill of Rights have been absolutely gutted by the war on drugs and the WOT. i'm a little more concerned with that than i am with the alleged unconstitutionality of federal oversight of education.

Harshaw said:
At no point was the federal government ever intended to be involved in education.

the need arose, and it continues to be a need. if you're expecting the department to be eliminated at this point, i would wager that you'll be expecting for quite a while. however, the current leadership is likely to gut public education in favor of for-profit schools, so i wouldn't be surprised to see you lauding the Department of Education at some point in the near future.

Harshaw said:
Seeing people as a "resource pool" to be tapped for national aims does.

the population is the future of any nation. personally, i'd prefer to have the most thoroughly educated population that we can get.

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

Henrin said:
Ignoring that education started as a local concern and people fought like all hell when the state government wanted a say in it. To say that somehow a matter that started out as local issue was somehow intended to be under the authority of the federal government is a reach. It is even more of a reach when you realize that Jefferson warned against that very thing.

Washington also warned against political parties, and rightly so, IMO.

Harshaw · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
i've answered the question multiple times already, and this is the last time that i will remind you of this.

You DIDN'T. When you "reminded" me the last time, all you did was link back to your post which said "oversight."

This does not answer the question as to why the Feds are uniquely superior to the states in this regard.

You have NOT answered that.

i'd say that federal oversight of education definitely benefits the general welfare.

I guess you just blew right past the part explaining what the clause actually refers to.

here's what wikipedia has to say about the Department of Education :

There's no "commerce" involved; taxing and spending can only go toward those things authorized in Article I.

either way, we're back to the age old "i don't like the politics of program x, so let's call it unconstitutional."

Maybe some people do that, but I do not.

meanwhile, significant portions of the Bill of Rights have been absolutely gutted by the war on drugs and the WOT.

And I'm entirely against all of them; I've been perfectly consistent in that since the '80s.

i'm a little more concerned with that than i am with the alleged unconstitutionality of federal oversight of education.

So, in contrast to what you said above about "politics," you're taking the tack of "I'm not worried about it, and I kind of like it, so it's Constitutional as far as I'm concerned."

the need arose, and it continues to be a need.

Which is WHAT? You haven't said. What is the NEED?

if you're expecting the department to be eliminated at this point, i would wager that you'll be expecting for quite a while.

Didn't say it would be; it's irrelevant to the point.

however, the current leadership is likely to gut public education in favor of for-profit schools, so i wouldn't be surprised to see you lauding the Department of Education at some point in the near future.

Consistency is a virtue, and one I practice, so you'll be waiting a long time for that.

the population is the future of any nation. personally, i'd prefer to have the most thoroughly educated population that we can get.

So would I. But that, too, is irrelevant to the point.

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

Harshaw said:
I guess you just blew right past the part explaining what the clause actually refers to.

There's no "commerce" involved; taxing and spending can only go toward those things authorized in Article I.

both public and private education consume a lot of tax dollars. therefore, federal oversight of education is entirely appropriate.

Harshaw said:
Maybe some people do that, but I do not.

And I'm entirely against all of them; I've been perfectly consistent in that since the '80s.

that's good news; we have a point of agreement.

Harshaw said:
So, in contrast to what you said above about "politics," you're taking the tack of "I'm not worried about it, and I kind of like it, so it's Constitutional as far as I'm concerned."

see above.

Harshaw said:
Didn't say it would be; it's irrelevant to the point.

Consistency is a virtue, and one I practice, so you'll be waiting a long time for that.

nice try.

Harshaw said:
So would I. But that, too, is irrelevant to the point.

not really. it IS the point.

Henrin · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
Washington also warned against political parties, and rightly so, IMO.

And? Jefferson when it comes to education is one of the more extreme of the founders on the issue and even he didn't agree with you. In fact, he warned against your idea when proposing his own system towards education.

Harshaw · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
both public and private education consume a lot of tax dollars. therefore, federal oversight of education is entirely appropriate.

Non-sequitur; the one does not follow from the other.

And this is still not an explanation as to why the feds are preferable to the states, even if it did.

that's good news; we have a point of agreement.

eace

nice try.

Let me know if you ever see me "lauding" the Department of Education.

not really. it IS the point.

No, one can value an educated population without seeing people as cogs of the state.

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

Henrin said:
And? Jefferson when it comes to education is one of the more extreme of the founders on the issue and even he didn't agree with you. In fact, he warned against your idea when proposing his own system towards education.

in that case, i guess that Jefferson and i will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

TurtleDude · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
i wouldn't call federal oversight of state and local educational standards "nauseating." it would be a real stretch to claim that this isn't a proper role of federal government.

I guess if you buy into the erosion of state powers and the FDR expansion of federal powers, you'd feel that way. If you actually believe that the constitution should be interpreted as its plain language suggests and changed only through amendment, then you would find it disgusting

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

Harshaw said:
Let me know if you ever see me "lauding" the Department of Education.

will do.

Harshaw said:
No, one can value an educated population without seeing people as cogs of the state.

agreed. however, federal oversight of educational standards does not make people "cogs of the state." it is emotionally charged hyperbole, though. if that's what you were going for, good work.

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
I guess if you buy into the erosion of state powers and the FDR expansion of federal powers, you'd feel that way. If you actually believe that the constitution should be interpreted as its plain language suggests and changed only through amendment, then you would find it disgusting

so, to be clear, you support eliminating federal oversight of state and local educational standards?

TurtleDude · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
so, to be clear, you support eliminating federal oversight of state and local educational standards?

I support limiting the federal government to the powers delegated to it. Try as I might I don't see anything about the federal government having such power and I cannot read "commerce among the states" as a grant of such power

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
I support limiting the federal government to the powers delegated to it. Try as I might I don't see anything about the federal government having such power and I cannot read "commerce among the states" as a grant of such power

i'll take that as a yes. i doubt that we're likely to find common ground on this issue.

TurtleDude · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
i'll take that as a yes. i doubt that we're likely to find common ground on this issue.

If there is an amendment than I wouldn't have a major problem. I do have major problems with the attitude that "since we need the federal government to have a power-it is constitutional for it to have it without any further ado "

Helix · Jan 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
If there is an amendment than I wouldn't have a major problem. I do have major problems with the attitude that "since we need the federal government to have a power-it is constitutional for it to have it without any further ado "

like i said, education is partially funded by federal tax dollars, so oversight seems entirely appropriate. not to mention that education is one of the most important issues when it comes to the future of our country, so national minimal standards seem wise, if not essential. i suspect that there will be less (if any) pushback from the right on the constitutionality of the department if it starts doing things that Republicans like. who knows, maybe the left will pick up the "unconstitutional" banner at that point. i've learned to not underestimate the potential for hypocrisy where tribalistic politics are concerned.

TurtleDude · Jan 20, 2017

Helix said:
like i said, education is partially funded by federal tax dollars, so oversight seems entirely appropriate. not to mention that education is one of the most important issues when it comes to the future of our country, so national minimal standards seem wise, if not essential. i suspect that there will be less (if any) pushback from the right on the constitutionality of the department if it starts doing things that Republicans like. who knows, maybe the left will pick up the "unconstitutional" banner at that point. i've learned to not underestimate the potential for hypocrisy where tribalistic politics are concerned.

I cannot speak for those on the right who would approve, I would not. I have been rather consistent the 11+ years I have been here about not supporting stuff that doesn't have a sound constitutional basis for its existence

Did De Voss Lie to the Senate Hearing?

calamity

Privileged

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Helix

Henrin

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

Helix

Helix

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Helix

Henrin

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Helix

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Helix

Helix

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Helix

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Helix

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands