• 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
phishfi said:
8

I'll name a few: prohibition, marijuana nullification, the few states right now that are nullifying federal gun laws, border states enforcing stronger immigration laws, the northern states nullifying the federal slave laws. It's happened plenty of times in our history, the people are the sovereign, in fact, that's kind of how our government's founding document begins...
Click to expand...

The people are NOT deciding issues of Constitutionally in place of the Supreme Court. Never have done it and never will do it.

If you believe so, give me a specific case and a specific action by the people.
 
Geoist said:
Because bureaucrats in DC know better than teachers and parents on how to educate children. If NCLB taught us anything its that national govt is not about to divert away from the assembly line model.
Click to expand...

And I DO NOT defend the assembly line model and am proudly one of its loudest critics both here and in countless educational meetings and conferences when I taught for thirty-three years and now during my three years in state government.
 
haymarket said:
The people are NOT deciding issues of Constitutionally in place of the Supreme Court. Never have done it and never will do it.

If you believe so, give me a specific case and a specific action by the people.
Click to expand...

Some states seceded from the Union, created the Confederate States of America and went to war against the United States of America. This would, in some cases, lead a person to suspect that, at least once, the "people" chose not to accept the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutionality. While not successfully, those people certainly placed themselves above the Supreme Court and "decided" issues of Constitutionality.

Do you really want the "people" to once again decide issues of "Constitutionality"? Seems it can and has been done, but look at the results of doing so.
 
DVSentinel said:
Some states seceded from the Union, created the Confederate States of America and went to war against the United States of America. This would, in some cases, lead a person to suspect that, at least once, the "people" chose not to accept the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutionality. While not successfully, those people certainly placed themselves above the Supreme Court and "decided" issues of Constitutionality.

Do you really want the "people" to once again decide issues of "Constitutionality"? Seems it can and has been done, but look at the results of doing so.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, they can do it, but they've already agreed to follow the laws of the land and to follow the social contract. Nobody says they have to like what the Supreme Court rules, but they have already agreed to live with that ruling, simply by continuing to live here.
 
haymarket said:
And I DO NOT defend the assembly line model
Click to expand...

I know you don't. But I think advocacy of central government control of ed. could lead to unintended consequences.
 
Geoist said:
I know you don't. But I think advocacy of central government control of ed. could lead to unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

The only reasons that I somewhat, not totally support a national system is that it removes artificial boundaries and reduces the drain on resources.
 
Cephus said:
Oh sure, they can do it, but they've already agreed to follow the laws of the land and to follow the social contract. Nobody says they have to like what the Supreme Court rules, but they have already agreed to live with that ruling, simply by continuing to live here.
Click to expand...

I can only somewhat agree. While there are problems here that need correcting, there is no place else for some of us to go.

The country today is not the country I first vowed to support and defend in 1985. What we have today is not what I sacrificed and risked my life for.

We marched to war to give freedom to our society only to return home to find that most of them have used that freedom to shackle themselves into slavery, now denigrate and demonize our sacrifices and efforts, and the enemy we fought now sits at the head of the table and is being fed the fatted calf.
 
haymarket said:
The people are NOT deciding issues of Constitutionally in place of the Supreme Court. Never have done it and never will do it.

If you believe so, give me a specific case and a specific action by the people.
Click to expand...

The post you linked were cases where the people exercised their sovereignty in contradiction to the SC. In dredd Scott v Sanford the SC ruled that blacks weren't allowed practically any rights and that the northern states were required to return escaped slaves to their owners. Instead, those states nullified that ruling. I've already posted this whole thing before, but you don't seem to read everything people post. The southern states actually tried to suceed because the federal government was unable to enforce the ruling made by the SC (which can be found in the list of reasons why south Carolina was leaving the union)... there! Case given...
 
DVSentinel said:
I can only somewhat agree. While there are problems here that need correcting, there is no place else for some of us to go.

The country today is not the country I first vowed to support and defend in 1985. What we have today is not what I sacrificed and risked my life for.

We marched to war to give freedom to our society only to return home to find that most of them have used that freedom to shackle themselves into slavery, now denigrate and demonize our sacrifices and efforts, and the enemy we fought now sits at the head of the table and is being fed the fatted calf.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's just not my problem. You can only pick from among the available choices. Pick the one that you can best live with and deal with the consequences. Nobody ever said that the world was fair.
 
Cephus said:
Sorry but that's just not my problem. You can only pick from among the available choices. Pick the one that you can best live with and deal with the consequences. Nobody ever said that the world was fair.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are other choices. And who says I have to "live" with them? I don't know what others think of it, but well, dying is far better than living through hell on earth.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Better Dead than Red.
 
phishfi said:
I agree that people refer to Obama as a dictator. I don't blame them for it though, because the government is hooked on control lately.
Click to expand...
Then you agree with me that conservatives shouldn't get upset when they're asked what they mean by "sovereign". Good! :)
 
DVSentinel said:
Actually, there are other choices. And who says I have to "live" with them? I don't know what others think of it, but well, dying is far better than living through hell on earth.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Better Dead than Red.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to do that too if you really want to. Gun barrel in your mouth and have a nice day.
 
DVSentinel said:
Some states seceded from the Union, created the Confederate States of America and went to war against the United States of America. This would, in some cases, lead a person to suspect that, at least once, the "people" chose not to accept the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutionality. While not successfully, those people certainly placed themselves above the Supreme Court and "decided" issues of Constitutionality.

Do you really want the "people" to once again decide issues of "Constitutionality"? Seems it can and has been done, but look at the results of doing so.
Click to expand...

Criminality is nothing new. Nor is treason.
 
phishfi said:
The post you linked were cases where the people exercised their sovereignty in contradiction to the SC. In dredd Scott v Sanford the SC ruled that blacks weren't allowed practically any rights and that the northern states were required to return escaped slaves to their owners. Instead, those states nullified that ruling. I've already posted this whole thing before, but you don't seem to read everything people post. The southern states actually tried to suceed because the federal government was unable to enforce the ruling made by the SC (which can be found in the list of reasons why south Carolina was leaving the union)... there! Case given...
Click to expand...

Treason and criminality are nothing new. The Texas v. White case and the 14th Amendment decided that no such right existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/f162e248-7e4c-490f-98a0-cc1c152ce05f.pdf

When did a state legally nullify the Dred Scott ruling causing the SC ruling to have no standing? The only way this can be done is by amending the US Constitution as was done after the Civil War. And that procedure is in the hands of the Congress and legislatures of the states. Until that was done it did not matter what state felt about Dred Scot.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Treason and criminality are nothing new. The Texas v. White case and the 14th Amendment decided that no such right existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/f162e248-7e4c-490f-98a0-cc1c152ce05f.pdf

When did a state legally nullify the Dred Scott ruling causing the SC ruling to have no standing? The only way this can be done is by amending the US Constitution as was done after the Civil War. And that procedure is in the hands of the Congress and legislatures of the states. Until that was done it did not matter what state felt about Dred Scot.
Click to expand...

Ok, where's the camera?! I must be getting punk'd. The northern states nullified the fugitive slaves act. 19 states so far have nullified marijuana laws. Many states nullified prohibition.

The states hold sovereignty over the federal government, not the other way around. Therefore, The states have every right to do what they want, provided it doesn't conflict with the enumerated powers that the states agreed to give to the feds.

And if your argument is that the federal's government's laws are the "supreme law of the land" then you misunderstand the constitution completely: the clause only applies to the laws necessary and proper to the execution of those enumerated duties that the federal government exists to conduct.

I hope you taught something other than American history or government.

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with nullification! The southern states seceded, because the northern states used nullification, not the other way around. You can't honestly believe that everything in this country is made to be decided by 5 people, and the rest of the country just has to live with it, right?
 
Last edited:
phishfi said:
Ok, where's the camera?! I must be getting punk'd. The northern states nullified the fugitive slaves act. 19 states so far have nullified marijuana laws. Many states nullified prohibition.
Click to expand...


You confuse quixotic public relations efforts to do so with the reality of actually doing so and triumphing.

for each of these allegations and claims, please give us verifiable evidence and details showing us how the decision of the SC or Congress was effectively and legally nullified in these cases.

lets see the verifiable evidence. Not attempts. Not standing in the school house door. Not grandstanding. Not catering to the local crowd when it actually was an act of impotence.

Show us were in these cases of yours, the state was successfully able to legally override a SC decision.
 
haymarket said:
You confuse quixotic public relations efforts to do so with the reality of actually doing so and triumphing.

for each of these allegations and claims, please give us verifiable evidence and details showing us how the decision of the SC or Congress was effectively and legally nullified in these cases.

lets see the verifiable evidence. Not attempts. Not standing in the school house door. Not grandstanding. Not catering to the local crowd when it actually was an act of impotence.

Show us were in these cases of yours, the state was successfully able to legally override a SC decision.
Click to expand...

Ok. South Carolina submitted the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, in which the specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the US Constitution protecting slavery. So, some states had effectively nullified the fugitive slave act.

Earlier, south Carolina also nullified a federal tariff which was dramatically hurting their state. And like I've pointed out 3 or 4 times now, a number of states have begun nullifying federal marijuana laws and gun laws... Madison, the father of the constitution, and Jefferson both advocated nullification as the overall power the states have to fight off federal usurpations of power...
 
phishfi said:
Ok. South Carolina submitted the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, in which the specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the US Constitution protecting slavery. So, some states had effectively nullified the fugitive slave act.

Earlier, south Carolina also nullified a federal tariff which was dramatically hurting their state. And like I've pointed out 3 or 4 times now, a number of states have begun nullifying federal marijuana laws and gun laws... Madison, the father of the constitution, and Jefferson both advocated nullification as the overall power the states have to fight off federal usurpations of power...
Click to expand...

uh - no. States attempted to secede from the union in a treasonous action to destroy the United States of America. It was stopped. Citing the opinion of fellow travelers does not provide any verifiable evidence of your claim. It only shows the paranoia that was rampant in the South over the entire issue which was far from decided in any legal sense. And that is what we are debating.

I could not care less what some individuals advocated as that is NOT the discussion. The challenge was a simple one: if you and others maintain that the United States Supreme Court is NOT the body empowered with judicial review and there is something higher, simply cite the cases with verifiable evidence.

the marijuana laws are a story in mid telling and is not anywhere near resolved or decided with any judicial finality. When it is, be sure to come back and report on it.

So far, you have failed to cite any verifiable evidence supporting your claims of historical fact that there is a higher authority than the US Supreme Court in determining the constitutionality of a law.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
uh - no. States attempted to secede from the union in a treasonous action to destroy the United States of America. It was stopped. Citing the opinion of fellow travelers does not provide any verifiable evidence of your claim. It only shows the paranoia that was rampant in the South over the entire issue which was far from decided in any legal sense. And that is what we are debating.

I could not care less what some individuals advocated as that is NOT the discussion. The challenge was a simple one: if you and others maintain that the United States Supreme Court is NOT the body empowered with judicial review and there is something higher, simply cite the cases with verifiable evidence.

the marijuana laws are a story in mid telling and is not anywhere near resolved or decided with any judicial finality. When it is, be sure to come back and report on it.

So far, you have failed to cite any verifiable evidence supporting your claims of historical fact that there is a higher authority than the US Supreme Court in determining the constitutionality of a law.
Click to expand...

You're behind comprehending this, apparently. I gave you a specific case, the fugitive slave act, where states (almost every state in the north) nullified a federal law, and you refuse to see it. I'm saying that the nullification by the good people in the north, was so effective at nullifying federal law that it made the confederacy secede.

How isn't that one specific case when the states threw out a giving by the supreme court and showed their sovereignty absolutely?
 
haymarket said:
And you have never shown me to be ignorant of anything in American history other than your own perverted and intentionally biased attempts to pretend that one thing is really a different thing and then you jump all over it when I fail to recognize it through the same biased lenses that you seem to wear.
Click to expand...

Thus far (off the top of my head) you were unaware until educated that FDR's solution to hunger in America was to destroy large amounts of food, that the progressive era claimed that competition was "wasteful", and you didn't know who was sovereign in the American system of government. And, again, for someone who taught government, that is sort of a biggie.

I make no claim about what the Supreme Court had aright to do or not right to do. What I do is acknowledge historical reality. The SC reached out and grabbed.... took..... siezed .... the power of judicial review which was clearly not specified in the actual US Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case. Because their ruling served the temporary interests of the other two branches, they failed to challenge what the Court did and the result was what it was.
Click to expand...

Judicial Review =/= Judicial Supremacy, which is a 20th Century addition.

We were discussing who had the power to make a determination of what the Constitution would permit and not permit in terms of law. The people being sovereign has nothing to do with the power of judicial review and it is irrelevant and should never have been brought out of the barn and hung up as a strawman.
Click to expand...

Actually no, the question was who had sovereignty. In the question of review of law, it applies directly:

Thomas Jefferson said:
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
Click to expand...
 
phishfi said:
Ok. South Carolina submitted the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, in which the specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the US Constitution protecting slavery. So, some states had effectively nullified the fugitive slave act.

Earlier, south Carolina also nullified a federal tariff which was dramatically hurting their state. And like I've pointed out 3 or 4 times now, a number of states have begun nullifying federal marijuana laws and gun laws... Madison, the father of the constitution, and Jefferson both advocated nullification as the overall power the states have to fight off federal usurpations of power...
Click to expand...
The Fed marijuana and gun laws are not "nullified" by state law. States can choose to ignore those Fed laws but I have as yet to see a state that has stopped a Federal agent, ATF, FBI, or US Marshal, from enforcing Federal laws inside their state. My state has a (theoretical) law in place that would charge a person with a misdemeanor for enforcing or abiding by certain Fed gun laws but that has yet to be put to the test and I don't believe it ever will be.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
The Fed marijuana and gun laws are not "nullified" by state law. States can choose to ignore those Fed laws but I have as yet to see a state that has stopped a Federal agent, ATF, FBI, or US Marshal, from enforcing Federal laws inside their state. My state has a (theoretical) law in place that would charge a person with a misdemeanor for enforcing or abiding by certain Fed gun laws but that has yet to be put to the test and I don't believe it ever will be.
Click to expand...

It's still nullification. There are actually three forms of nullification. The gun nullifications are in the form that's considered the most active, but it's still refusal to enforce a federal (unconstitutional) law
 
phishfi said:
It's still nullification. There are actually three forms of nullification. The gun nullifications are in the form that's considered the most active, but it's still refusal to enforce a federal (unconstitutional) law
Click to expand...
A refusal to enforce federal law is not what I call nullification. Making it illegal to enforce federal law within a state is what I call nullification - and it'll never fly. Like I said, Missouri has such a law but I have as yet to see anyone thrown in jail or even fined for enforcing federal law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom