>> 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". <<
why don't you tell us exactly what you stand for on a plethora of issues first so i can be sure not to misrepresent your positions.
>> I was asking the question (as an example), not answering it <<
thanks for making my point. you are good at asking questions and criticizing my answers but where are your answers?
>> Nevertheless, both I and the US Supreme Court disagree with your view <<
the supreme court tramples all over the constitution, including the first amendment, so there you go. you just provided an example where the policies you advocate trample all over the constitution. saved me the trouble!
>> In particular, where state and local laws, programs or administration of education violate the US Constitution, <<
so you are saying the federal government only has jurisdiction when the constitution is being violated?
>> and 2) provide federal funding for education, it is therefore within the authority of Congress to regulate how those funds should be spent. <<
where in the constitution does it say this? p.s. see thomas jefferson quote below.
>> You apparently disagree with the majority of Americans as to whether federal tax dollars should be spent on education at all. <<
so what is your point? the lame argument that because i don't hold the majority opinion, i'm wrong? throughout history the majority has always been right? is this the best you can come up with? the supreme court agrees with me, congress is on my side, and the american people are on my side, so i must be right!
>> Pardon me for agreeing with the majority and with Jefferson that education is in the national interest. <<
oh you happen to agree with jefferson now do you? just like you agreed with madison and hamilton about tariffs, ho ho, ho!
well let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter.
"application to the great purposes of the public education…and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers, I suppose an amendment to the Constitution by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied."
--Thomas Jefferson
so you can agree with jefferson all you want, but if you are going to stand on the side of jefferson you better admit that he (correctly) believed that the constitution didn't grant power to federal government domain over education and a constitutional amendment is needed. that's three times now you have tried to hijack the words of our founding fathers to further your agenda and three times i have exposed direct contradictions to your point of view. nice try.
and...
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject [prohibition of alcohol], but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
"pardon" mr jefferson and fdr if they happen to understand the constitution better than you!
>> On the contrary, many (if not most) states’ constitutions provide for equal educational opportunity (under their own equal protection clauses), <<
only a red diaper doper baby like yourself would turn "equal opportunity" into the federal or state government must seize power and spend whatever amount necessary to equalize outcomes. after all if educational outcomes are not equal, someone must not be afforded the proper "opportunity".
>> public education as a fundamental obligation of state government <<
why don't you show me where it says this?
article X of the constitution:
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People"
who says states are obligated? i don't see that in the constitution, do you?
>> and even, in the case of West Virginia, education as a fundamental right of its citizens <<
once again, to a commie marxist such as yourself, the right to education must mean the federal or state government should dictate how it should be implemented.
>> 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. <<
forgive me if i'm not familiar with the case, but you really need to get over this notion that because some court ruled in a certain case, that it automatically interpreted the constitution correctly. you obviously didn't get a very good public education because you think if the supreme court says so it must be correct! heh, heh, heh!
>> Another unsubstantiated, unspecific claim. <<
like i said, have the guts to lay out your stance on issues, and i will be happy to point out where you're wrong.
>> 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." <<
i'm flattered that you went through all that trouble to find the constitutional precedent granting the authority of the federal government to federalize airport security. let me help make your own point even further, because you need all the help you can get!
the supreme court ruled in an early case that commerce:
"comprehends traffic, trade, navigation, communication, the transit of persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph -- indeed, every species of commercial intercourse"
gosh. i guess that means the next time a delivery truck (conducting commerce) loaded with a bomb drives past security into underground office parking and levels a building you are going to say the govt is abdicating it's responsibility by not federalizing office building security. i suppose you are going to call for federalization of security protection for our waterways, nuclear plants, etc. after all it's in the national vital interest right? the supreme court ruled that communication is included under the umbrella of commerce so i guess that means you advocate the federal government federalizing internet security. after all, the internet is in the vital national interest for conducting communication and commerce. and don't forget radio and television--vital to dispersion of information to our citizens. i suppose we should federalize tv and radio station security. i guess we should have federal workers guarding antennas out in the mountains. after all if there is an attack on our soil and the terrorists knock out our communications how can the government protect and inform it's citizens? i guess that means we need to federalize and post security workers at all cellular and satellite transmitting and receiving locations. gosh, the constitution says the federal government has the power to lay taxes. i suppose you advocate a 99% flat tax on all citizens because after all, it is constitutional.
why don't you expose your true agenda for our country and renounce your citizenship and move to cuba! get the fuck out of my homeland you treacherous commie bastard!
>> 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? <<
hmm, did i dream that timothy mcveigh took a ryder truck and parked it underneath a building, (attacked persons of the united states in the process) and used that truck to blow up a federal building, declaring war on the united states federal government? i suppose i must be stupid if i don't believe a red diaper pinko commie like yourself isn't in favor of federalizing all building security??? i suppose the next time a terrorist illegally gets ahold of a gun, loads it up and shoots a number of people that we should federalize gun sales. after all gun sellers aren't paid enough, and are too lax in their security when it comes to selling guns to the wrong people. so let's have the federal government nationalize gun selling too! tell me, am i learning how to be a good commie yet?
>> 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 <<
after reading your socialist bullshit those words couldn't have been more true. it's a shame that a person such as yourself could go to so many fancy schools and still be so ignorant. it's a testament to our higher "education" system that someone like yourself could be indoctrinated with such useless commie ideology. gosh, perhaps i should have gone to some commie college campus and wasted money on a couple of degrees so i could've learned to be a good illogical marxist like yourself. |
