• 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!

Should the federal government get to decide how universities are run?

Should they?


  • Total voters
    13
Yes, the government should have the right to make certain decisions if the university chooses to take taxpayer money.

For example, if a university takes tax money, they should be required to allow ROTC to operate on campus. If they are not comfortable with this compromise, they can look to their liberal alums to fund them.

Now, how about we spring that trap :2wave:
 
Depends on how much federal government money the university receives. If they receive even one dollar from the federal government like so many universities do. Then I do not see why the federal government should have a say in what they do. How many universities are completely funded by private donors? Those creepy ultra christian ones where everybody dresses in 1984 uniforms?

What makes you think religious schools receive any more private funding than non-religious ones.

They receive taxpayer money in violation of the Constitution.

The government may as well insist the socialist professors demanding the government take over everything receive government pay scale, right? Those same perfessers want the goverment to violate the Constitution for everything else, so why not?

Let's put it this way...the government taking over won't be able to decrease the quality of education those students are getting.

Can you link me to the part of the Constitution that is being violated.

I went with the bear option as it was closest for me. But I wasn't scared, and I found $20.

Solid work.
 
If the government is paying for the university (for example, state universities), then yes. Also, if the university chooses to accept government funds, than it should be aware that certain strings are attached.

Assuming the government contributes no funding, then no, it should have no say in how the university is run (except in cases where laws are broken).
 
Can you link me to the part of the Constitution that is being violated.

Article 1, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment, to name two places. Taken together, they strictly forbid federal funding of eduation.

Don't try to pretend that phrase "general welfare" means "blank check". It don't. Article 1 Section 8 detail what SPECIFIC powers the Congress has to promote the "general welfare". It does not list "education of the masses" as an option.

The Tenth Amendment states that what isn't specifically granted to the Congress is reserved to the States. There's no exception listed in that amendment.

President Jefferson in one of his State of the Union messages stated that since his opinion was that the interests of the nation would be best served if the government financed some form of minimum public education, it would be nice if the Congress would pass an Amendment to the Constitution permitting Congress to appropriate those funds for that purpose.

Congress did not pass the Amendment, ever.

Congress did not appropriate the funds at that time.

Federal funding for education is a violation of the Constitution.

Also, both Madison and Hamilton agree on one point, they who disagreed on many points....the purpose of specifically defining the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8 was to prevent the Congress from assuming other powers, and that it makes absolutely no sense to claim that any clause grants Congress unlimited power that would undermine and eliminate the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article 1, Section 8.

Almost nothing the 21st Century US congress does is legal, because almost nothing they do is Constitutional. Almost everything they do is outside the scope allotted them by Article 1, Section 8.
 
Cookie Cutter Universities would be a horrible thing.

I've got a lot of experience in that area, and cookie cutters are cute, but stupid. They can't learn a thing. They're set up to make hearts for example, and that's all they ever do until they break.

The government shouldn't be in the cookie cutter business.

Then again, it shouldn't be in the Financing Some Kid's Education Business, either.

If the government wasn't interfering in the college financing scams, college wouldn't be so expensive, and maybe the myth that everyone has to have a college education to be happy would finally evaporate. I can't imagine why anyone things the Wal-Mart clerk with journalism degree is going to be any happier than the Wal-Mart clerk that hired in straight from high-school and didn't drag down those college loan payments. They're getting paid the same, aren't they?

Here's an idea....make the kids going to college, and their families, accept the fact that it's their education (or their kids) and that it's therefore their RESPONSIBILITY to finance that education and to choose a major that's both productive and profitable.

It's not the duty of the taxpayer who didn't spawn the kid to pay for the stranger's education. He's got his own life to live, let him live it his own way...without burdening him with a busload of miscellaneous crap that he had no part in.

As was noted in Caddy Shack, it's fine for the young lad to aspire to his highest abilities....but if he can't afford to reach them, well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

Then again...before the government got to interfering in college finances....students could figure out a way to work their way through college. And, well, let's face it, if they're not willing to work for it, why the hell should the government be wasting someone else's tax dollars on them?

No...college today isn't about learning useful skills. It's not about becoming productive members of society. Be for real. The only reason kids go to college is Spring Break.
 
Article 1, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment, to name two places. Taken together, they strictly forbid federal funding of eduation.

Don't try to pretend that phrase "general welfare" means "blank check". It don't. Article 1 Section 8 detail what SPECIFIC powers the Congress has to promote the "general welfare". It does not list "education of the masses" as an option.

The Tenth Amendment states that what isn't specifically granted to the Congress is reserved to the States. There's no exception listed in that amendment.

This has been argued to death in about 50 other threads on here. Feel free to search for those if you want a more detailed response, but for now, I'll just say that Hamilton's view was endorsed by the SC in US v. Butler, and there's no going back.

President Jefferson in one of his State of the Union messages stated that since his opinion was that the interests of the nation would be best served if the government financed some form of minimum public education, it would be nice if the Congress would pass an Amendment to the Constitution permitting Congress to appropriate those funds for that purpose.

Link?

Also, both Madison and Hamilton agree on one point, they who disagreed on many points....the purpose of specifically defining the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8 was to prevent the Congress from assuming other powers, and that it makes absolutely no sense to claim that any clause grants Congress unlimited power that would undermine and eliminate the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article 1, Section 8.

Nobody claimed that the power was unlimited, that's a strawman.

If the government wasn't interfering in the college financing scams, college wouldn't be so expensive

There's some truth to this.

Here's an idea....make the kids going to college, and their families, accept the fact that it's their education (or their kids) and that it's therefore their RESPONSIBILITY to finance that education and to choose a major that's both productive and profitable.

FWIW, the taxpayer isn't doing much to finance most educations. At most, they're subsidizing stafford loans to the tune of a few percent. I doubt that without that, kids would drop out or choose different majors.

It's not the duty of the taxpayer who didn't spawn the kid to pay for the stranger's education. He's got his own life to live, let him live it his own way...without burdening him with a busload of miscellaneous crap that he had no part in.

But you have no problem with the states imposing school taxes to pay for state-run public schools?

As was noted in Caddy Shack, it's fine for the young lad to aspire to his highest abilities....but if he can't afford to reach them, well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

I have to give you props for citing Caddyshack.

Then again...before the government got to interfering in college finances....students could figure out a way to work their way through college. And, well, let's face it, if they're not willing to work for it, why the hell should the government be wasting someone else's tax dollars on them?

Students back in the day could "figure it out" because their total educational debt was probably $10k, not $200k.

No...college today isn't about learning useful skills. It's not about becoming productive members of society. Be for real. The only reason kids go to college is Spring Break.

For some.
 
This has been argued to death in about 50 other threads on here. Feel free to search for those if you want a more detailed response, but for now, I'll just say that Hamilton's view was endorsed by the SC in US v. Butler, and there's no going back.

Yeah, the USSC has never made a mistake, not once in it's history.


Google

Nobody claimed that the power was unlimited, that's a strawman.

No.

There are currently NO limits on congressional action. That "strawman" has a chainsaw and is chasing you down the road. Ain't no Ray Bolger in that suit, it's real.

There's some truth to this.

Of course.

I wrote it.

FWIW, the taxpayer isn't doing much to finance most educations. At most, they're subsidizing stafford loans to the tune of a few percent. I doubt that without that, kids would drop out or choose different majors.

Yeah, no one uses Pell Grants. No one takes up the burden of paying back those loans when the student refuses to. It's just free money, is all.

But you have no problem with the states imposing school taxes to pay for state-run public schools?

Not relevant to the discussion of what's constitutional or not.

Read the thread title.

I have to give you props for citing Caddyshack.

One should study the classics.

Students back in the day could "figure it out" because their total educational debt was probably $10k, not $200k.

And....it's 200K because the Federal government interfered in the tuition market. I mean, if the college you want to go to knows your rich uncle is going to pay the balance of what you can afford and what they demand in tuition....gee golly...look at those tuitions take the express elevator to the penthouse.

When I was going to college the inflation rate had been tamed by Reagan to be roughly 3-4% per year. College tuition fees were growing three times that, and they've outpaced the national inflation rate every single year since.

For some.

For enough, considering they're consuming taxpayer dollars.
 
Yeah, the USSC has never made a mistake, not once in it's history.

Did I say they didn't?


Oh, so you're just trolling. Great.

There are currently NO limits on congressional action.

Yes there are.

That "strawman" has a chainsaw and is chasing you down the road. Ain't no Ray Bolger in that suit, it's real.

Right.

Yeah, no one uses Pell Grants. No one takes up the burden of paying back those loans when the student refuses to. It's just free money, is all.

Considering that student loans are not dischargable in bankruptcy, there's not much risk involved.

Not relevant to the discussion of what's constitutional or not.

Read the thread title.

Oh my bad, I didn't know you were so concerned with staying on topic, what with your rant about KIDS TODAY ALWAYS PLAYING THE VIDDYA GAMES AND WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN LOW AND JUST PARTYING WHAT A WORTHLESS GENERATION RAHHHHHH.
 
Did I say they didn't?

You didn't say they did.

Oh, so you're just trolling. Great.

No. I'm telling the student to do his own work.

Yes there are.

Oh, right. I forgot. The USSC said Congress can't put limits on abortion.

But...the Congress is forbidden by the Constitution from spending money on education....a big line item in the modern federal outlay.

Congress is forbidden from bailing out failed companies...and I don't need to say more about that, do I?

Congress is forbidden from running a retirement ponzi scheme...but I'm still robbed for socialist security taxes anyway. So are you.

No, there's no effective limits on anything Congress wants to do now.

You can pretend there are. You can make yourself feel good believing it, but when they want to interfere in something new, they're going to do it. Our great grandparents, the Greedist Generation that lived during the Depression, they took the hobbles off the crazy horse and he wasn't too dangerous then, but he's running wild now.

Considering that student loans are not dischargable in bankruptcy, there's not much risk involved.

Yeah. No risk. The borrower just stops paying. Why bother, when the useless degree he took the loan out for got him that wonder-job at Wal-mart?

Oh my bad, I didn't know you were so concerned with staying on topic, what with your rant about KIDS TODAY ALWAYS PLAYING THE VIDDYA GAMES AND WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN LOW AND JUST PARTYING WHAT A WORTHLESS GENERATION RAHHHHHH.

You got a little cross-talk there, bud, put down your Wii remote and focus.
 
Back
Top Bottom