• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nationalizing the Education System

Nationalize Schools?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 53 71.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • Total voters
    74
Your point being, what? That you think Congress will decide one day it should impose mandatory education on everyone until they have a Ph.D.?

It's not up to the "Federal Government" - aka Congress - to decide that. The USSC has the final say and has ruled many laws unconstitutional.

*sigh*, the point being that the Federal government is more than just Congress and even Executive Branch departments are given wide latitude by most laws to interpret laws as they see fit. This is probably where move abuse is created than just the passing of laws. You specifically mentioned non-adults in an earlier post. You made the decision to restrict your point to that group and I was challenging why it would only apply to non-adults.

More law is implemented by the Executive branch than most people realize. If the Federal Government wants to justify anything as being governed by the general welfare clause, no one, not even the SC is likely to stop them. Funny how even Obamacare was not justified by the General welfare clause.
 
Your point being, what? That you think Congress will decide one day it should impose mandatory education on everyone until they have a Ph.D.?

It's not up to the "Federal Government" - aka Congress - to decide that. The USSC has the final say and has ruled many laws unconstitutional.

The USSC is the federal government. That's why the federal government can't validate its own laws as constitutional and be the final arbiter of that decision. The states (the owners of the federal government) are the ultimate decision makers of what is and isn't constitutional.
 
Which is part of the necessary curriculum. Unfortunately, today we're only teaching kids how to feel good about themselves, not how to think critically.

Actually, that opinion is a couple of decades out of date. We do, in fact, teach critical thinking skills. At one time "self esteem" was the number one priority, but no longer.
 
Your point being, what? That you think Congress will decide one day it should impose mandatory education on everyone until they have a Ph.D.?

It's not up to the "Federal Government" - aka Congress - to decide that. The USSC has the final say and has ruled many laws unconstitutional.


That is correct. the balance of powers is still working to a degree. Still, there are few in Congress who take the tenth amendment seriously, and a lot more who think that the general welfare clause covers everything.

Or, maybe they just think that the constitution is something to be circumvented in a never ceasing search for more power.
 
You of all people using an implication to interpret the Constitution?!? Now THAT'S funny! :lamo

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? What you might call "general welfare" I would call control of the economy. As many of your modern day peers believe, we don't need a national money supply or any of the other stuff associated with it. In fact, didn't we manage without national money, except on a very limited basis, for a good part of the first century? I could be wrong, I've never read about the history of money in America, but I know there were a lot of different private notes running around in the 1800's.

I'm not sure what you're getting at actually. I'm not following your point about private notes.

Congress may tax, and congress may spend money on the exercise of the other powers listed in Art I, section 8. States gave congress these powers because they promoted the general welfare, which was the whole reason for establishing the constitution in the first place. The restrictions placed upon congress' power to tax clearly are there to limit its spending to only its other legitimate powers, all of which revolve around common defense and promotion of the general welfare.
 
If you do not like being pointed out for your strawmen - then quit using them.

I support limited government. You claim you do also. What is the problem? :doh

if someone believes government can use the general welfare for anything they have a mind to do , ..that is not limited government.

education, is not a duty of the federal government.
 
*sigh*, the point being that the Federal government is more than just Congress and even Executive Branch departments are given wide latitude by most laws to interpret laws as they see fit. This is probably where move abuse is created than just the passing of laws. You specifically mentioned non-adults in an earlier post. You made the decision to restrict your point to that group and I was challenging why it would only apply to non-adults.

More law is implemented by the Executive branch than most people realize. If the Federal Government wants to justify anything as being governed by the general welfare clause, no one, not even the SC is likely to stop them. Funny how even Obamacare was not justified by the General welfare clause.
I mentioned non-adults because the current system takes no position on mandated adult education, only primary and secondary education. I made that plain enough five posts ago.
 
The USSC is the federal government. That's why the federal government can't validate its own laws as constitutional and be the final arbiter of that decision. The states (the owners of the federal government) are the ultimate decision makers of what is and isn't constitutional.
Then you violate your own contract, the US Constitution.
There's a reason a Supreme Court justice can't be easily removed from office once appointed.


However, the states certainly have the right to change that law, so, yes, the do indeed have the final say. All it takes is an Amendment to the Constitution. :cool:
 
Last edited:
The USSC is the federal government. That's why the federal government can't validate its own laws as constitutional and be the final arbiter of that decision. The states (the owners of the federal government) are the ultimate decision makers of what is and isn't constitutional.

The states should just ignore their misbehaving agent, or walk away from it altogether.
 
Then you violate your own contract, the US Constitution.
There's a reason a Supreme Court justice can't be easily removed from office once appointed.


However, the states certainly have the right to change that law, so, yes, the do indeed have the final say. All it takes is an Amendment to the Constitution. :cool:

Much like a soldier having a duty to defy unlawful orders, states have a duty to defy unconstitutional laws...
 
That is correct. the balance of powers is still working to a degree. Still, there are few in Congress who take the tenth amendment seriously, and a lot more who think that the general welfare clause covers everything.

Or, maybe they just think that the constitution is something to be circumvented in a never ceasing search for more power.
I'm sure there's a little of all those things. What matters is the law itself - first and foremost - and, in far second place, the vote of the people.
 
Much like a soldier having a duty to defy unlawful orders, states have a duty to defy unconstitutional laws...
And they do that by not enforcing them. It's been done in the past, it'll be done in the future. We've already been through this. :shrug:
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at actually. I'm not following your point about private notes.
A lot of money was issued in the 1800's that did not have "US Treasury" printed on it.
 
A lot of money was issued in the 1800's that did not have "US Treasury" printed on it.

I understand that. I just don't know why you're telling me this.
 
Madison actually says, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, Madison says:


“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:


“…If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:


“…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as


“…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; 10 and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.”
 
Actually, that opinion is a couple of decades out of date. We do, in fact, teach critical thinking skills. At one time "self esteem" was the number one priority, but no longer.

No, now they're just teaching kids how to past tests *AND* how to feel good about themselves.
 
Your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual language of the US Constitution which clearly says that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare.

:lol: anyone else find it entertaining that Haymarket thinks that his preferred interpretation is the what the Constitution "clearly says", while the people who wrote the Constitution are just dismissable opinions?
 
No, now they're just teaching kids how to past tests *AND* how to feel good about themselves.

There is a huge incentive for teaching kids how to pass tests, that's true, and will be as long as the stupid bureaucrats insist on using a standardized test as the sole method to evaluate schools and teachers.

Check out the state standards for your state, however, and see if it doesn't include a lot of critical thinking.
 
There is a huge incentive for teaching kids how to pass tests, that's true, and will be as long as the stupid bureaucrats insist on using a standardized test as the sole method to evaluate schools and teachers.

I'm not talking about teaching them to pass tests in general, but how to pass the state-specific tests. My kids are both spending the last *3* entire weeks of school reviewing for their finals, they spent nearly a month preparing for the state tests. That's time they didn't learn anything new. I'm opposed to that.

Check out the state standards for your state, however, and see if it doesn't include a lot of critical thinking.

No, not really it doesn't.
 
:lol: anyone else find it entertaining that Haymarket thinks that his preferred interpretation is the what the Constitution "clearly says", while the people who wrote the Constitution are just dismissable opinions?

The Constitution says what it says. If some individual among the 55 who participated in its writing holds an opinion - that is fine. It changes nothing of the actual words of the Constitution.

btw - you and some others who put such great store in these individual opinions as shown in the Federalist Papers would do well to actually read them. For example, Hamilton clearly said that each legislature should be free to interpret the meaning of what GENERAL WELFARE actually was to them.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

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 wiki article on the topic contains an interesting observation about the broader Hamiltonian view of general welfare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years

So the broader view could indeed be said to the the original view that was exercised in our first two administrations of Washington and Adams - both founders.

So the sainted founder agrees with me. If that matters as to the meaning of the Constitution, that is for the Court to decide.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom