• 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
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.
That's bull. The Amendments certainly aren't interpreted that way, and that's a fact. The 14th has been bastardized well beyond it's intent as have many other Amendments, including (IMO) the 2nd, though I have NO problem with it's current interpretation.

But then again, I believe we should look at the contract that was actually signed, not the laments and opinions of the writers. I'm pretty sure that's the way all contracts work in this country. The intent of the writer doesn't mean squat in court, only the final, signed document itself - which is as it should be.
 
Last edited:
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:

Hahaha, this is hilarious. They stated multiple times that the second amendment referred only to federal intervention. The justification clause doesn't necessitate a militia in order to have guns, hence it saying right of the people, instead of the right of the militia... such a terrible argument.
 
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:

So in your opinion, the clause we are discussing should be interpreted as, "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?" Is this your stance?
 
Hahaha, this is hilarious. They stated multiple times that the second amendment referred only to federal intervention. The justification clause doesn't necessitate a militia in order to have guns, hence it saying right of the people, instead of the right of the militia... such a terrible argument.
Oh, I know the argument very well. The problem is, it doesn't jive with what's written as Federalist seems to want it interpreted. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious conclusion from someone else's standards of belief. If you've got a beef, take it up with Federalist, not me.
 
Oh, I know the argument very well. The problem is, it doesn't jive with what's written as Federalist seems to want it interpreted. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious conclusion from someone else's standards of belief. If you've got a beef, take it up with Federalist.

Please don't put words in my mouth.
 
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.

You agree that Congress can levy and collect taxes.
You agree that education is part of the general welfare of the USA.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to act for and in the general welfare.

So thus, taxes to pay for education is perfectly constitutional. No other reasonable interpretation would make any sense given those two realities.
 
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.

It says what it says. The opinion of an individual is irrelevant.
 
So in your opinion, the clause we are discussing should be interpreted as, "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?" Is this your stance?
My interpretation is simple:

"... to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States;" Now, what "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" means might be open to interpretation but little else is.
 
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. You presented an argument which dictated a certain rule be followed in order to support your argument. All I did was take that same rule and apply it to another area of the Constitution. I mean, if the rule should be applied to one part then it should be applied to all parts. Otherwise, it's just crap.
 
You agree that Congress can levy and collect taxes.
You agree that education is part of the general welfare of the USA.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to act for and in the general welfare.

There is you mistake. Congress has no grant of power to provide for the general welfare. Per the relevant language, congress has a grant of power to collect taxes. That is all.
 
I didn't put any words in your mouth. You presented an argument which dictated a certain rule be followed in order to support your argument. All I did was take that same rule and apply it to another area of the Constitution. I mean, if the rule should be applied to one part then it should be applied to all parts. Otherwise, it's just crap.

I wasn't putting forth a general rule. I was explaining my interpretation of the text in question.
 
My interpretation is simple:

"... to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States;" Now, what "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" means might be open to interpretation but little else is.

I'm not sure of your answer here. Are you saying that congress has the power to collect taxes AND also has the power to provide for the general welfare? (That would be TWO powers)

Or are you saying that congress has the power to collect taxes in order to provide for the general welfare? (That would be one power)
 
I wasn't putting forth a general rule. I was explaining my interpretation of the text in question.
If you "method of interpretation" only applies to the parts you want then it isn't an objective means of interpretation and should be considered crap.
 
I'm not sure of your answer here. Are you saying that congress has the power to collect taxes AND also has the power to provide for the general welfare? (That would be TWO powers)

Or are you saying that congress has the power to collect taxes in order to provide for the general welfare? (That would be one power)
The latter - but it's not just one power, exactly, since it also includes other "pay" and "provide" objects besides "general welfare" toward which taxes et al could be used. Both "pay the Debts" and "provide for the common Defense" are included as objects, too.
 
Last edited:
The latter - but it's not just one power, exactly, since it also includes other "pay" and "provide" objects besides "general welfare" toward which taxes et al could be used. Both "pay the Debts" and "provide for the common Defense" are included as objects, too.
So the power being granted is the power to tax.
 
If you "method of interpretation" only applies to the parts you want then it isn't an objective means of interpretation and should be considered crap.

I am not proposing a method of interpretation. I am simply explaining my understanding of the passage under discussion.
 
My interpretation is simple:

"... to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States;" Now, what "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" means might be open to interpretation but little else is.

I would agree with your interpretation of this portion, as long as it's understood that the constitution clarifies the common defense and general welfare in the enumerated powers listed later on in the constitution. Especially when you look at the founders' statements later on that spelled out the fact that it makes little sense to have a constitution giving the federal government power to do anything they want under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"
 
So the power being granted is the power to tax.
The power to tax et al to:

1. pay the debt
2. provide for the common Defense
3. provide for the general welfare
 
I would agree with your interpretation of this portion, as long as it's understood that the constitution clarifies the common defense and general welfare in the enumerated powers listed later on in the constitution. Especially when you look at the founders' statements later on that spelled out the fact that it makes little sense to have a constitution giving the federal government power to do anything they want under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"
I do not look at the "founders' statements later on". Contracts are not enforced by the intent of one of the parties involved. Apparently you've never read the fine print that's been added by law to various financial documents to clearly spell this out to the layman. What you see is what you get and that's all you get.
 
I do not look at the "founders' statements later on". Contracts are not enforced by the intent of one of the parties involved. Apparently you've never read the fine print that's been added by law to various financial documents to clearly spell this out to the layman. What you see is what you get and that's all you get.

Not when the earliest rulings of the supreme court specifically stated that the constitution must be looked at in the manner in which its creators intended. That was even upheld as recently as 2008
 
Not when the earliest rulings of the supreme court specifically stated that the constitution must be looked at in the manner in which its creators intended. That was even upheld as recently as 2008
And it was ignored at other times. I previously mentioned the 14th Amendment in this regard.


Centuries ago the signers were available for questioning. Today, that's not the case and not all of them put their opinions on paper, so their opinions are obviously not all represented today. We don't know what many signers understood of what they were signing and what it's "intent" was.
 
Last edited:
And it was ignored at other times. I previously mentioned the 14th Amendment in this regard.


Centuries ago the signers were available for questioning. Today, that's not the case and not all of them put their opinions on paper, so their opinions are obviously not all represented today. We don't know what many signers understood of what they were signing and what it's "intent" was.

If you are using this as an excuse to increase the power of Big Brother to indoctrinate our youth, it's awfully lame! :roll:
 
And it was ignored at other times. I previously mentioned the 14th Amendment in this regard.


Centuries ago the signers were available for questioning. Today, that's not the case and not all of them put their opinions on paper, so their opinions are obviously not all represented today. We don't know what many signers understood of what they were signing and what it's "intent" was.

The huge majority of them have written their intentions and their explanations. You're twisting the preamble to the constitution to mean that the constitution gives all rights, whatsoever, to the federal government for the purposes of providing for the general welfare. If there were founders who thought the intent of the preamble was to do that, then we'd have seen that and no federalist or anti federalist would have come to an agreement. In fact, the people against the constitution were worried that people would misinterpret that clause, like you're doing right now, and that forces MANY discussions from the federalists to assure them that it isn't made to create an unlimited government.

The preamble uses 'general welfare' as a reference to the later enumerated powers. The 1st enumerated power is only applicable to taxes, still using general welfare as a reference to those powers later clarified.

For example, it says provide for the common defense, then later spells at how they provide for the common defense (creating an army and navy, defending the states by calling for support from the militias, etc). Why state exactly how something is to be done if you're authorizing the government to make laws in pursuance of the enumerated powers? Because they wanted clarity and assurances for the states (the federal government's sovereign)
 




Edumacation is fracked up enough as it is, no need to make it suck uniformly everywhere.
 
There is you mistake. Congress has no grant of power to provide for the general welfare. Per the relevant language, congress has a grant of power to collect taxes. That is all.

It says right in Article I that they do

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;
 
Back
Top Bottom