• 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
I know that seeing as the Federal Government is not given the power to meddle with education, and that allows the state to assume that power, the Constitution though does state that the Federal Government has the power to do things that will provide for the general welfare. Would you support such a measure to nationalize schools? Feel free to explain your vote!

No way, no (bleep!)ing way, never. Close down the Department of Education and return decision making power to the local schools, then allow the parents the choice of which school to patronize.

Allow choice! In this nation that supposedly values liberty, the question of whether to allow choice should always be answered in the affirmative. It should never, in fact, have to be asked in the first place.
 
that's right, and it is the powers enumerated to congress, and there are 18 of them, which binds the compact.

congress does not have unlimited power to act at will.

Strawman. Nobody said they did.
 
Except that provide for the general welfare is meant to convey the powers later mentioned, not any power congress wants. Even later in section 8 it makes it clear that congress has the power to make the laws pursuant of those specific powers. Why would they make that distinction?
Why would Section 8 be the only section in Article 1 where they had some kind of preface? None of the other Sections of Article 1 have anything like that - at least Articles 6-10 don't. There was a thread about this very subject in the Loft so I went out and looked. You should, too, before you try to continue down this road.
 
Why would Section 8 be the only section in Article 1 where they had some kind of preface? None of the other Sections of Article 1 have anything like that - at least Articles 6-10 don't. There was a thread about this very subject in the Loft so I went out and looked. You should, too, before you try to continue down this road.

I didn't say that. What you're failing to understand is that the portion of the first paragraph that's an actual power is the authority to tax.

What I said was that the rest is the reason for the taxes, which are all of the following powers. So basically, section 8 starts by saying how they can afford to do the things authorized by the constitution, the middle is all the legal powers given to the federal government by the states, and the last power is how they can create laws to make those powers happen.
 
This is the basis of our disagreement. I don't agree that it obviously means that congress was given plenary power to provide for the general welfare. If it were, then there would not have been any need for the remainder of Art I, section 8.

Your interpretation means that the states, in establishing their compact, gave unlimited power to the federal government. I don't accept this notion.

But then again, ultimately, the federal government will do what it chooses to do, until it is unable to get away with it. A piece of paper has never and can never restrain government. Our discussion is purely academic.
If you're correct then one would have to assume that paying the debts would just be another general statement as you claim providing for the common Defense and providing for the general welfare are, yet nothing is mentioned in the other parts about paying the debt - though borrowing money is allowed. Your interpretation would require that Congress can borrow money but has no authority to pay it back. Sorry, I just don't buy that.

There are also numerous financial areas covered that have nothing to do with debt, Defense, or general welfare. At that time, postal service had almost nothing to do with the general welfare because there were few literate people. Naturalization, bankruptcy, coining money and the counter-fitting of same, etc, etc. - again, unrelated. Yes, there are some very specific powers about the military, which just shows me they wanted to be very explicit about that particular area of power, which many of them rightfully feared could be abused by the federal government. But nothing in any of that leads me to believe that the first part is JUST about the ability to lay and collect taxes, et al.
 
I didn't say that. What you're failing to understand is that the portion of the first paragraph that's an actual power is the authority to tax.

What I said was that the rest is the reason for the taxes, which are all of the following powers. So basically, section 8 starts by saying how they can afford to do the things authorized by the constitution, the middle is all the legal powers given to the federal government by the states, and the last power is how they can create laws to make those powers happen.
Really? Then as I noted above, there is no authority to pay the debts. The authority to borrow is specifically mentioned but no way to pay them is shown - except in the first part, right along with "provide for the common Defense and general welfare". All three of those are objects of the first partion of part one.


Note: The second, which is also the last, partion of part one is "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".
 
Why couldn't it be construed for adults as well? Education originally wasn't included as a power of Congress and then it got added and not yet successfully struck down. Someone could just as easily say that education should be controlled to the age of 30 or more.
I don't recall any public school system requiring adults to attend school. Do you know of any?
 
If you're correct then one would have to assume that paying the debts would just be another general statement as you claim providing for the common Defense and providing for the general welfare are, yet nothing is mentioned in the other parts about paying the debt - though borrowing money is allowed. Your interpretation would require that Congress can borrow money but has no authority to pay it back. Sorry, I just don't buy that.

There are also numerous financial areas covered that have nothing to do with debt, Defense, or general welfare. At that time, postal service had almost nothing to do with the general welfare because there were few literate people. Naturalization, bankruptcy, coining money and the counter-fitting of same, etc, etc. - again, unrelated. Yes, there are some very specific powers about the military, which just shows me they wanted to be very explicit about that particular area of power, which many of them rightfully feared could be abused by the federal government. But nothing in any of that leads me to believe that the first part is JUST about the ability to lay and collect taxes, et al.

You're just plain wrong here. The portion of the clause that's a power is taxing, the reason is to provide for the Defense and welfare. Those two things are listed later. This is what the people that wrote it explained later on, and, frankly, it's incredibly obvious based on nothing less than the definition of a constitution, and for that matter, a republic.
 
You're just plain wrong here. The portion of the clause that's a power is taxing, the reason is to provide for the Defense and welfare. Those two things are listed later. This is what the people that wrote it explained later on, and, frankly, it's incredibly obvious based on nothing less than the definition of a constitution, and for that matter, a republic.
You didn't address the issue in my post at all. Try again.


If taxing is the only power listed in part 1 then where is the authority to pay the debt? And if you admit that's also in part 1, as an object to the first portion of the statement, then you also have to admit Defense and general welfare. Zero or three objects, your choice. Anything else is half-assed at best.
 
You're just plain wrong here. The portion of the clause that's a power is taxing, the reason is to provide for the Defense and welfare. Those two things are listed later. This is what the people that wrote it explained later on, and, frankly, it's incredibly obvious based on nothing less than the definition of a constitution, and for that matter, a republic.
39 people signed the Constitution. Show me the same 39 whose opinions are the same as the others cited here and we may have something to consider. Until then, it doesn't matter what was or was not intended by some of the signers. All that matters is what was signed, just like any other contract.
 
You didn't address the issue in my post at all. Try again.


If taxing is the only power listed in part 1 then where is the authority to pay the debt? And if you admit that's also in part 1, as an object to the first portion of the statement, then you also have to admit Defense and general welfare. Zero or three objects, your choice. Anything else is half-assed at best.

Well, considering that the first clause doesn't say anything about paying the debt at all, it makes little sense to me hay I should all of the sudden believe that the whole clause it to be taken as 3 individual powers being listed together...
 
39 people signed the Constitution. Show me the same 39 whose opinions are the same as the others cited here and we may have something to consider. Until then, it doesn't matter what was or was not intended by some of the signers. All that matters is what was signed, just like any other contract.

Find a founder who says otherwise, I shouldn't have to go through every opinion of every signer to find that for you. I've read plenty of the federalist and anti federalist, the Kentucky resolution, and a number of other documents, in which there was much discussion over the topic of federal overreaching into states' duties. Nobody wanted the federal government to control everything in the manner you're suggesting.

Even still, the state's are the ones in changed of the federal government, as they are its creator. The right to nullify federal laws exists no matter what you call it.

Also, if the federal government can do anything under the label of "providing for the general welfare," then what does the tenth amendment allow? Why would they write that?
 
Really? Then as I noted above, there is no authority to pay the debts. The authority to borrow is specifically mentioned but no way to pay them is shown - except in the first part, right along with "provide for the common Defense and general welfare". All three of those are objects of the first partion of part one.


Note: The second, which is also the last, partion of part one is "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

Also, paying off the debt is a duty of the treasury, not Congress
 
Find a founder who says otherwise, I shouldn't have to go through every opinion of every signer to find that for you. I've read plenty of the federalist and anti federalist, the Kentucky resolution, and a number of other documents, in which there was much discussion over the topic of federal overreaching into states' duties. Nobody wanted the federal government to control everything in the manner you're suggesting.
The positive claim that the government does have the right has already held up in a court of law. If you oppose that view, then it's on you to prove it's incorrect and you can't do that or someone would have already done it.

In a court of law you must show that all parties intended something not written or it won't hold up. One person cannot go into court and say, "But that's not what I intended!".


I wasn't suggesting any particular manner other than a minimal standard for primary and secondary education. What else you believe is your own imagination run wild.


Even still, the state's are the ones in changed of the federal government, as they are its creator. The right to nullify federal laws exists no matter what you call it.
If all the states want to get together and make an Amendment to clarify or change Article 1 Section 8 they certainly have that option as outlined in Article 5 and the same goes for any other section of the Constitution.


Also, if the federal government can do anything under the label of "providing for the general welfare," then what does the tenth amendment allow? Why would they write that?
Nothing I've said would allow the federal government to "do anything" as you seem to think. I've said from the start it's a matter of how you interpret "general welfare" and what that covers. It's the job of the USSC to do that if someone thinks Congress has overstepped their bounds.
 
Last edited:
Also, paying off the debt is a duty of the treasury, not Congress
And where does the Treasury get that authority? Isn't it part of the federal government? Where do you think Treasury gets the authority to mint coins and prosecute counterfeiters?

It all goes back to Article 1 Section 8 - including paying the debt.
 
Well, considering that the first clause doesn't say anything about paying the debt at all, it makes little sense to me hay I should all of the sudden believe that the whole clause it to be taken as 3 individual powers being listed together...
Yes it does. Are you still trying to read the Preamble instead of Article 1 Section 8?
 
It very clearly says that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the USA. The radical right wing does not like it but your sainted hallowed founders did it to you just the same.

This is written in English.

It may be clear to those on the radical left, but in reality the clause in question simply gives congress the power to tax, and it limits this power to taxing only for specific purposes.
 
If you're correct then one would have to assume that paying the debts would just be another general statement as you claim providing for the common Defense and providing for the general welfare are, yet nothing is mentioned in the other parts about paying the debt - though borrowing money is allowed. Your interpretation would require that Congress can borrow money but has no authority to pay it back. Sorry, I just don't buy that.

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.


There are also numerous financial areas covered that have nothing to do with debt, Defense, or general welfare. At that time, postal service had almost nothing to do with the general welfare because there were few literate people. Naturalization, bankruptcy, coining money and the counter-fitting of same, etc, etc. - again, unrelated. Yes, there are some very specific powers about the military, which just shows me they wanted to be very explicit about that particular area of power, which many of them rightfully feared could be abused by the federal government. But nothing in any of that leads me to believe that the first part is JUST about the ability to lay and collect taxes, et al.

I disagree. Each of the powers you mention are specifically aimed at the general welfare of the united states.
 
then is education or housing a duty of congress to be involved in?.......and if you believe yes.

then point to me in the constitution where it grants government that authority?

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.
 
It may be clear to those on the radical left, but in reality the clause in question simply gives congress the power to tax, and it limits this power to taxing only for specific purposes.

The US Supreme Court says you are wrong.
 
The US Supreme Court says you are wrong.

Thank you for that fascinating fact.

Does your non sequitur mean you have given up arguing your case? If so, I accept your defeat.
 
Thank you for that fascinating fact.

Does your non sequitur mean you have given up arguing your case? If so, I accept your defeat.

My fact was part of evidence that you are incorrect in your statement. In the past, people here challenged me to cite some expert authorities who agree with various positions I have taken. I just provided you with them.
 
My fact was part of evidence that you are incorrect in your statement. In the past, people here challenged me to cite some expert authorities who agree with various positions I have taken. I just provided you with them.

So the fact that the federal government claims certain powers is your evidence that these powers were granted to it by the states? Okay, but we have to realize that this is no a particularly unbiased expert authority.

Can you present any writings of the founders/ratifiers that article I section 8 grants plenary power to provide for the general welfare?
 
So the fact that the federal government claims certain powers is your evidence that these powers were granted to it by the states? Okay, but we have to realize that this is no a particularly unbiased expert authority.

Can you present any writings of the founders/ratifiers that article I section 8 grants plenary power to provide for the general welfare?

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


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


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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom