• 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
No. The constitution says that congress may lay and collect taxes in order to provide welfare of the united states. Read it again:



To lay and collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states. So congress has a limited power to tax. This does not translate into a power to operate schools.

You do not consider education of children to be an important of the welfare of the United States of America? :shock::doh:roll:
 
I am sorry that I do not get that comment as I do not speak Farrightwingese.

You don't understand the difference between a nation and a union of sovereign states? That explains a lot.
 
Your statement is false as you prevented a skewed and biased outlook on FDR which was unrecognizable compared to reality.

:lol: well that's typical of our public education system. describe historical reality as anything other than one in which FDR did wonderful things an they find it unrecognizable.

for those of you who are curious:

cpwill said:
haymarket said:
And what is this about the government gathering up the food and destroying it in the 1930's?

yeah. during the middle of the Great Depression, FDR's solution was to round up all the 'excess' food and destroy it. we still do it today . ahh... old programs never die, they just slowly increase their budgets...

FDR promoted higher food prices by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some six million farm animals. The food destruction program mainly benefited big farmers, since they had more food to destroy than small farmers. This policy and subsequent programs to pay farmers for not producing victimized the 100 million Americans who were consumers...

The sovereign statement is completely misinterpreted by you as I was clearly talking about the power of the Supreme Court regarding judicial review

You asked who should be the arbiter, and the reply was that the final arbiter should be the sovereign. You then asked who the sovereign was.

In both cases you attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Teachers should know their subject material.
 
You do not consider education of children to be an important of the welfare of the United States of America? :shock::doh:roll:

It's incredibly important. Which is why we want to make sure that the Federal government doesn't screw it all up.
 
You do not consider education of children to be an important of the welfare of the United States of America? :shock::doh:roll:

Congress has the power to tax, to borrow money, to regulate certain commerce, and several other powers. It does not have the power to operate schools.
 
:
Teachers should know their subject material.

First, no person in a field as large as history has a fingertip command of every single fact in that field and that would include all the greats including Arthur Schlesinger. There is no shame in that and it means nothing in terms of a persons over all knowledge and understanding of history.

Second, your statement was clear

ALL THE EXCESS FOOD

ALL


You do know the meaning of the word ALL right?
sorry but the event as you described it NEVER happened. It was a hyperbolic over the top ridiculous gross exaggeration which never happened in reality. But then you blamed me for not recognizing an event which never happened and for some reason - you still continue to beat that dead horse after your own intellectual fraud was exposed.
 
Last edited:
Congress has the power to tax, to borrow money, to regulate certain commerce, and several other powers. It does not have the power to operate schools.

I took the part of the Constitution THAT YOU QUOTED. Not me - you.

So you do not consider the education of children as part of the welfare of the USA?
 
I took the part of the Constitution THAT YOU QUOTED. Not me - you.

Well then you didn't read it very carefully. Try again:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There power being granted is the power to tax. Congress shall have power to collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states.

The power to tax does not equate to the power to operate schools.

So you do not consider the education of children as part of the welfare of the USA?

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." – Frédéric Bastiat

I consider education to be beneficial, but that is not the question we are discussing. We are discussing whether the constitution empowers the federal government to operate schools.
 
Well then you didn't read it very carefully.

You can reproduce it 55,297 times - it does not change from post to post. Nobody is disputing the words contained in the clause being discussed.

So you do NOT consider the education of children as part of the welfare of the USA?
 
You can reproduce it 55,297 times - it does not change from post to post. Nobody is disputing the words contained in the clause being discussed.

So you do NOT consider the education of children as part of the welfare of the USA?

No, I DO. I just told you that. However the congress currently does not have the power to operate schools.
 
No, I DO. I just told you that. However the congress currently does not have the power to operate schools.

Great. So education then falls within the general welfare scope.
 
First, no person in a field as large as history has a fingertip command of every single fact in that field and that would include all the greats including Arthur Schlesinger. There is no shame in that and it means nothing in terms of a persons over all knowledge and understanding of history.

I wasn't exactly challenging you to describe the impact of Peggy Eaton. This was one of the chief economic arguments of Progressivism, one of the major portions of the New Deal, and John Locke. They're sort of "big topics".

but perhaps Locke was cut from Michegan's Government curriculum so that students could spend that period instead writing an article in which they imagine what it must have felt like to be a differently-abled Native American Lesbian when the evil white people came. Given that education majors tend to learn the least in college, if your curriculum didn't force you to repeat it, I suppose you can't really be blamed for not learning; just then continually failing to do so.

Second, your statement was clear

ALL THE EXCESS FOOD

ALL


You do know the meaning of the word ALL right?
sorry but the event as you described it NEVER happened. It was a hyperbolic over the top ridiculous gross exaggeration which never happened in reality. But then you blamed me for not recognizing an event which never happened and for some reason - you still continue to beat that dead horse after your own intellectual fraud was exposed.

:lol: yeah. Keep trying to spin your own ignorance.

"Oh, I only didn't get it because I knew that they had destroyed a lot of excess food, so when you talked about them destroying all that excess food, it sounded so completely different that nobody could ever have drawn that link, ever, except someone who had ever had to actually think.

:roll:
 
Great. So education then falls within the general welfare scope.

The clause to which you refer does not grant any power. The power being granted is the power to tax.

The power to tax does not equate to the power to operate schools.
 
Great. So education then falls within the general welfare scope.

:doh

Please. Start reading history.

James Maddson said:
...Consider for a moment the immeasurable difference between the Constitution limited in its powers to the enumerated objects, and expounded as it would be by the import claimed for the phraseology in question. The difference is equivalent to two Constitutions, of characters essentially contrasted with each other--the one possessing powers confined to certain specified cases, the other extended to all cases whatsoever; for what is the case that would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution; all such provisions and laws superseding, at the same time, all local laws and constitutions at variance with them? Can less be said, with the evidence before us furnished by the journal of the Convention itself, than that it is impossible that such a Constitution as the latter would have been recommended to the States by all the members of that body whose names were subscribed to the instrument?

Passing from this view of the sense in which the terms common defence and general welfare were used by the framers of the Constitution, let us look for that in which they must have been understood by the Convention, or, rather, by the people, who, through their Conventions, accepted and ratified it. And here the evidence is, if possible, still more irresistible, that the terms could not have been regarded as giving a scope to Federal legislation infinitely more objectionable than any of the specified powers which produced such strenuous opposition, and calls for amendments which might be safeguards against the dangers apprehended from them...
 
Last edited:
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote extensively about what is meant by the term "general welfare" in the Constitution. Their views reflect the original intent of the Constitution, which is its only meaning until it is amended otherwise. Madison was very specific in regards to Art.1 Sec. 8 and the words "general welfare". He said:

The following is a selection of additional quotes by Madison and Jefferson on "general welfare" and the Constitution:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." James Madison


The Framers of the Constitution explicitly stated that charity is no duty or power of the federal government. They were not against charity, at the private or state government level, but they understood that if the federal government is given the power to do anything in the name of charity, it will inevitably use charity as an excuse to expand its own size and power, and the power and liberty of the states and of the people will be diminished and eventually destroyed. We are far down that path today. It would be good on this Constitution Day for Liberals and Conservatives alike to consider the above words and wisdom of our Founding Fathers and re-evaluate their views on the proper role and power of the federal government.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't exactly challenging you to describe the impact of Peggy Eaton.

What you did was fundamentally intellectually dishonest in addition to being outright false. FDR never had a program to confiscate and destroy all the excess or extra or surplus food in the USA. Never happened.

FDR's solution was to round up all the 'excess' food and destroy it

Then when I failed to recognize your ideologically skewed hyperbole, you dishonestly railed against me for not knowing a fact of history which was a lie in the first place. And every time you bring this up - which in and of itself is a sign of some terribly strange obsession you have with proving me wrong - I have pointed this out.
 
Last edited:
The clause to which you refer does not grant any power. The power being granted is the power to tax.

The power to tax does not equate to the power to operate schools.

In your opinion which is not supported by a reading of the clause itself.
 
In your opinion which is not supported by a reading of the clause itself.

Then why would they have written the rest if the constitution at all? And why would all of the founders make it clear that the powers are limited to the enumerated list of powers?

For that matters, why would the states even create their own governments if the federal government could control everything in the name of "general welfare"? And why wouldn't income tax have been a defensible program without a constitutional amendment?
 
In your opinion which is not supported by a reading of the clause itself.

The only way your opinion would be supported is if you were to interpret the text as something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, and congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."

My interpretation is something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."

So is it your opinion that this clause grants one power or multiple powers?
 
Then why would they have written the rest if the constitution at all? And why would all of the founders make it clear that the powers are limited to the enumerated list of powers?

For that matters, why would the states even create their own governments if the federal government could control everything in the name of "general welfare"? And why wouldn't income tax have been a defensible program without a constitutional amendment?

The put in what they put in. That is simple reality. If you do not like what they included - your problem is with the Constitution and not with me.
 
The only way your opinion would be supported is if you were to interpret the text as something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, and congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."

My interpretation is something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."

So is it your opinion that this clause grants one power or multiple powers?

So by your interpretation is Congress levied taxes to pay for national education that would be legal in your opinion?
 
So by your interpretation is Congress levied taxes to pay for national education that would be legal in your opinion?

No, as I just explained, that particlular language we are discussing ONLY gives congress the power to collect taxes. It grants no other power. The other powers of congress are listed in following clauses.
 
The put in what they put in. That is simple reality. If you do not like what they included - your problem is with the Constitution and not with me.

My problem with you is your gross misinterpretation of our country's founding document, even after countless pieces of evidence from the people who wrote the document themselves. Even the supreme court has ruled that the constitution is to be read and interpreted as it would have been interpreted at it's creation. So when we look at this, we have to look at it in the scope of the founders' intent. The founders' intent was to create a limited set of duties that the states all agreed on to be conducted for them, and for everything else to be handled by each individual state... not for any duties the public wants to be lumped into "general welfare" and handled by the federal government.
 
The only way your opinion would be supported is if you were to interpret the text as something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, and congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."

My interpretation is something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."

So is it your opinion that this clause grants one power or multiple powers?
If you turn your same reasoning to the 2nd Amendment then gun owners should have to belong to a "well regulated militia", which is shear poppycock. I mean, according to you - if the founders meant otherwise they would have used "and" in stead of a comma. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom