that is precisely the policies you advocate. an abuse of our liberties by our government.
I'm still waiting for you to site a specific example of a policy I advocate and explain how it is "an abuse of our liberties by our government".
the federal government should have no role.
I was asking the question (as an example), not answering it. Nevertheless, both I and the US Supreme Court disagree with your view. In particular, where state and local laws, programs or administration of education violate the US Constitution, the federal government does, in fact, have a role. See Brown v. Board of Education, for example.
In addition, as our elected representatives in Congress have determined that it is in the national interest to 1) provide for equal educational opportunities for all Americans and 2) provide federal funding for education, it is therefore within the authority of Congress to regulate how those funds should be spent.
You apparently disagree with the majority of Americans as to whether federal tax dollars should be spent on education at all.
To quote Thomas Jefferson:
“A system of general instruction which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so it will be the latest of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest.”
ltr to Joseph Cabell, 1818.
Pardon me for agreeing with the majority and with Jefferson that education is in the national interest.
even the state government should have a limited role.
On the contrary, many (if not most) states’ constitutions provide for equal educational opportunity (under their own equal protection clauses), public education as a fundamental obligation of state government, and even, in the case of West Virginia, education as a fundamental right of its citizens. Vermont’s highest court went so far as to rule that the state had abdicated its responsibility for public education by passing it on to local governments.
of course sniveling liberals such as yourself...
Another mature and reasoned argument.
...allow (even encourage) our government to trample all over the constitution and snatch away our liberties.
Another unsubstantiated, unspecific claim.
the commercial airline industry is simply a public transportation industry.
Yes, and the Constitution specifically empowers the Congress to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations. Furthermore, Title 49, Subtitle VII of the United States Code empowers and instructs the FAA to regulate air transportation and to provide for safety and security of air transportation. Of note is Subpart A, Section 40103:
"a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."
One could reasonably argue that delegating authority and responsibility for air transport security is not only an abdication of responsibility, but also a ceding of sovereign authority to private persons.
how is it a matter of national security?
Oh! Did I dream that 18 foreign terrorists infiltrated our air transportation system, hijacked four aircraft (attacking persons of the United States in the process), and used those aircraft as weapons with which they made war on the United States? Hmm. Was that a dream? Or, are you just stupid?
what kind of an american are you? a goddamn marxist one for sure.
...as long as commie pinko leftist marxists like you are around...
Ooooh... Your rhetoric grows more clever every day. How can anyone doubt your superior intellect?
More from Thomas Jefferson:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be.”
ltr to Charles Yancey, 1816
Perhaps you should not have given up on education. |
