• 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
MoSurveyor said:
I don't recall any public school system requiring adults to attend school. Do you know of any?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you recall that before 1862 there was zero Federal involvement and that was just allocating lands for colleges. Then Federal involvement increased dramatically after WWII.

If the Federal Government decides that something is for the General Welfare of the country, what isn't possible?
 
haymarket said:
So every nation which has national standards for education went Nazi? :doh :shock: Unless that is true - you are really way way way off base with this comparison.
Click to expand...

Based on other policies of late, the similarities are disturbing.

I'd prefer local entities be responsible for what is taught in the classroom.
 
haymarket said:
Granted to it through the US Constitution. I consider the individual opinions of founders to be irrelevant next to the actual document they gave us - the US Constitution - so I do not bother with such irrelevancies.

One can indeed find levels of support through such founders as Hamilton. Report on Manufacturers 1791





However, I do NOT hinge my view upon that and even though the Hamilton view agrees with mine, it is still irrelevant next to the Constitutional language itself.
Click to expand...

The supreme court and the states all agreed to the constitution with a different interpretation. The supreme court later changed its view, and that happened due to coercion from the executive branch.

As for supreme court rulings in favor of your opinion, the court has been wrong a number of times (like in the case of slavery), are we all just supposed to submit to the court's rule until they change their mind? Internment camps, slavery, etc are just to be lived with until they have a change of heart?

Also, their opinions on the matter are the wholly important factors, because the constitution is made to be interpreted two ways: the way it was intended at its creation, and in a manner that leaves the most desicions/freedoms to its sovereign (the states/the people).

Why can't you people just leave the decisions to the states and fight to make your states he utopia you imagine? Why does this have to be a national system at all?
 
Last edited:
I don't mind "national standards" so much as I mind a federal agency being intrusted with education in general. :mrgreen:
 
Cephus said:
The only reason I want central control (and it doesn't necessarily have to be government but I don't see how else it could be done) is to ensure consistency across the board. Every single school in every single town in every single state ought to be teaching the same thing at the same general time (at least in the same grade level). The purpose of schools are to teach facts. The facts don't change based on what state you're in. 1+1=2 is true no matter where you are, just because some group of crazies takes over a school board and insists that 1+1=3, that should never be acceptable.
Click to expand...

I don't think the teaching of facts is the issue. Yeah, there's a few Creationists who want to change science classes but that is miniscule compared to the overall problem.
 
haymarket said:
How can you yet again ask this question after a day of exchanges on this very topic? that has been answered many many many times?

Article I, Section 8.... Two different sections result in this - Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare of the USA and to pass laws which they believe are necessary and proper to achieve this power.
Click to expand...


the general welfare is the 18 enumerated duties of congress, and its not education at all or housing.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

your attempts at your little game, of saying you not for unlimited government and then claiming congress can use the general welfare to create anything they wish it very convoluted!

you know government is supposed to be limited, yet you will not come out and say it, and go against the founders, becuase any argument against them by you fails instantly.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, ------>but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
I don't think the teaching of facts is the issue. Yeah, there's a few Creationists who want to change science classes but that is miniscule compared to the overall problem.
Click to expand...

But since I'm only talking about curriculum, that's what I'm focusing on. We need to stop people from teaching nonsense in schools. There are lots of other things that we need to improve as well, but that's outside of what I'm discussing.
 
WCH said:
Based on other policies of late, the similarities are disturbing.

I'd prefer local entities be responsible for what is taught in the classroom.
Click to expand...

The so called "similarities' seem to be a figment of an over-active imagination combined with ideological zeal.
 
Cephus said:
The only reason I want central control (and it doesn't necessarily have to be government but I don't see how else it could be done) is to ensure consistency across the board. Every single school in every single town in every single state ought to be teaching the same thing at the same general time (at least in the same grade level). The purpose of schools are to teach facts. The facts don't change based on what state you're in. 1+1=2 is true no matter where you are, just because some group of crazies takes over a school board and insists that 1+1=3, that should never be acceptable.
Click to expand...

Facts are a dime a dozen. Any fact you want to know can be had at the push of a button. What students need to learn is how to evaluate and apply those facts, as well as how to use them to support opinions.
 
phishfi said:
The supreme court and the states all agreed to the constitution with a different interpretation. The supreme court later changed its view, and that happened due to coercion from the executive branch.

As for supreme court rulings in favor of your opinion, the court has been wrong a number of times (like in the case of slavery), are we all just supposed to submit to the court's rule until they change their mind? Internment camps, slavery, etc are just to be lived with until they have a change of heart?

Also, their opinions on the matter are the wholly important factors, because the constitution is made to be interpreted two ways: the way it was intended at its creation, and in a manner that leaves the most desicions/freedoms to its sovereign (the states/the people).

Why can't you people just leave the decisions to the states and fight to make your states he utopia you imagine? Why does this have to be a national system at all?
Click to expand...

1 - What coercion are you referring to? The Court Packing plan of FDR failed.

2 - Nobody is saying any human is infallible in their decisions. What I am saying is that nearly eighty years of American jurisprudence is firmly on my side of this issue. And as such means - quite frankly and without offense intended towards anyone - a whole hell of a lot more than just some right wingers opinion on the internet.

3 - Why don't we just leave it to states? Probably because we are Americans who love the USA and its people and want to see policies which advance us forward as a nation and as a people rather than in small fragments while leaving others behind.
 
ernst barkmann said:
your attempts at your little game, of saying you not for unlimited government and then claiming congress can use the general welfare to create anything they wish it very convoluted!

you know government is supposed to be limited, yet you will not come out and say it, and go against the founders, becuase any argument against them by you fails instantly.
Click to expand...

Again with the strawman as I never said I supported anything but limited government.
 
haymarket said:
The so called "similarities' seem to be a figment of an over-active imagination combined with ideological zeal.
Click to expand...

Right...figment. "Must come around to YOUR way of thinking....." Your lean has been disclosed.:cool:
 
WCH said:
Right...figment. "Must come around to YOUR way of thinking....." Your lean has been disclosed.:cool:
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means. Comparing things to the Nazi's when there is no real basis of comparison is hyperbole of the worst sort.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what that means. Comparing things to the Nazi's when there is no real basis of comparison is hyperbole of the worst sort.
Click to expand...

Logic Nazi!! :lamo
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what that means. Comparing things to the Nazi's when there is no real basis of comparison is hyperbole of the worst sort.
Click to expand...

Yea, I've heard taking about or comparing things to Nazis is a conversation killer. however, IT'S HISTORY and I don't care to repeat it.

AAMOF when someone tells me that, suspicions arise.

You're not a Brown shirt...are ya? :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Federalist said:
To borrow on credit means to take and use something (in this case money) under an agreement to pay it back later. I think it's safe to say that in giving congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the united states this includes the power to pay the money back.
Click to expand...
You of all people using an implication to interpret the Constitution?!? Now THAT'S funny! :lamo


Federalist said:
I disagree. Each of the powers you mention are specifically aimed at the general welfare of the united states.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Perhaps you recall that before 1862 there was zero Federal involvement and that was just allocating lands for colleges. Then Federal involvement increased dramatically after WWII.

If the Federal Government decides that something is for the General Welfare of the country, what isn't possible?
Click to expand...
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.?

Dittohead not! said:
Practically any abuse of federal government power can be justified by its supporters by citing that [general welfare] clause.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Again with the strawman as I never said I supported anything but limited government.
Click to expand...

limited government then does not include education or housing and many other things the government uses to justify their actions by using the 2 words"general welfare.


2 over used expressions..........strawman, and ...the bottom line is!
 
Dittohead not! said:
Facts are a dime a dozen. Any fact you want to know can be had at the push of a button. What students need to learn is how to evaluate and apply those facts, as well as how to use them to support opinions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
limited government then does not include education or housing and many other things the government uses to justify their actions by using the 2 words"general welfare.


2 over used expressions..........strawman, and ...the bottom line is!
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom