let's pick a school issue...do you believe the federal government or the supreme court is correct to disallow mentions of God or prayer in school?
Show me a court ruling that "disallow[s] mention of God."
fine. try to obfuscate.
Umm, what didn't you understand? I drew a distinction between "jurisdiction" and spending on programs to benefit education, participation in which is purely voluntary. Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone else find that confusing?
do you believe the federal government should have any say whether or not school prayer is allowed in school? SIMPLE QUESTION.
Besides being poorly written, it is not a simple question. It depends on what you mean by "school prayer". Your wording ("school prayer ... in school") implies more than that the prayer simply occurs AT a school. "School prayer" implies that the school is somehow sponsoring or promoting religious activities. If so, then that violates the establishment clause of the Constitution (assuming it is a public school). If, OTOH, you simply mean students choosing to pray on their own, without school sponsorship or promotion even though the prayer happens to occur at a school, it does not, IMO. Of course, schools have a right to limit activities of students that may interfere with or disrupt the operation of the school (and I would include in that anything that creates an environment that may be hostile to those who do not wish to participate in prayers).
but you fail to acknowledge the most important (and relevant) point which was that the constitution as it stood did NOT grant the federal government those powers, and that a constitutional amendment was needed to accomplish his goal. yet you claim that not only should the federal government be involved, it already has the powers granted to it in the constitution. i asked YOU a simple question of where this power is granted in the constitution and you have failed to reply.
Learn to read. What didn't you understand? Of course I acknowledged that this was his point - by disagreeing with it. A constitutional amendment may be required for the federal government to have jurisdiction over public education (beyond protecting constitutional rights), but it is not required for the Congress to appropriate money. Do I need to site the clause where it says they can appropriate money to provide for the "general welfare"? Well, I won't. Reading it might do you some good.
the federal government absolutely has influenced the domain of public education.
Stupid word games again? What, are you picking up our last President's habits? You used the words "jurisdiction" and "dictate", then insist on focusing on the meaning of "domain". Jefferson didn't use any of them. It was your own inconsistency.
i suppose we could use the "promote the genral welfare" to mean that the federal government should guarantee everyone a job. and of course you could take "promote the general welfare" to mean that the government should provide healthcare for all.
You could argue those positions. You have the right to argue for whatever programs you want, not matter how stupid the policy or the argument.
Come to think of it, there was a lengthy debate over the latter issue just a few years ago. It's hardly a constitutional matter, though. The best arguments against Hillary's gang, IMO, were economic. Hillary lost, BTW.
now show me in the constitution where it says the federal govt has powers regarding education, and explain to me why your lame "promote the general welfare" argument is a better interpretation than the one offered by one of the founding fathers instrumental in the formation of the constitution, thomas jefferson, and another by fdr.
Asked and answered. Besides, Jefferson was an anti-federalist who opposed federal government involvement in most matters. Of course he would argue that it had no power to appropriate money for programs he opposed. The constitution he initially feared became his best friend when he wanted to try to use it to block the opposition (particularly Hamilton).
gee, i guess galileo was outvoted when he said the earth was round, not flat. i guess that meant he was wrong.
Hah! You crack me up. Of course he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't make you right.
>> Neither the building nor the truck, presumably, are travelling in US airspace. Correct? If not, then it is a matter for the property owners and local law enforcement. <<
oh, so we are changing our tactic now. before it was national security issue and an attack on citizens. now it's only important when the attacks happen in u.s. airspace. ...but mcveigh did drive the ryder truck loaded with a bomb over interstate highways and he did attack the alfred p murrah federal building.
You quote my answer to a hypothetical about a building and a truck bomb, but then apply my answer to the specific case of OK City, which you raised in a later paragraph. Clever trick.
Absent facts or circumstances giving rise to federal law enforcement jurisdiction, it is a matter for local law enforcement. What don't you understand?
i suppose according to you it's only a national or vital interest to the country when people attack federal property now?
Jumping back and forth between "national interest" and "jurisdiction" again? It is in the "national interest" to solve all crimes, but that does not mean that all criminal activity and investigations fall under federal jurisdiction. That a particular crime was committed against federal employees or property is an example of the many things that may give rise to federal jurisdiction. Interstate flight (not air flight, but evasion of capture) is another. An apparent terrorist attack such as 9/11, even if it had been accomplished with bombs instead of aircraft, seems pretty obvious in giving rise to federal jurisdiction. That it did involve hijacked aircraft made it even more obvious.
OTOH, if you blow up your neighbor's grocery because you don't like the fact that he was permitted to move here from Korea, it is not obvious that the feds should swoop down and whisk you away to a military tribunal. Of course, further investigation by local authorities may give them reason to bring in the feds. Like when they find bomb parts and a map to Ted Kennedy's house.
i'm not arguing that the govt can federalize airport security.
Assuming that's a typo and you meant "can't" instead of "can", yes you were, but I'm glad you've given up that stupid argument.
i am arguing that they shouldn't.
Fine. That's your opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong, but in any case, you were outvoted again.
better watch out commie, or there might be more timothy mcveigh's out there.
Are you threatening me? Sounds like a threat. Maybe I can get you kicked off of SI.
do you know who was pictured on his favorite t-shirt the day he conducted his bombing? do you know what the phrase beneath that picture said?
I couldn't care less. That's a matter for you and your fellow fan club members to giggle over.
are you putting words in my mouth?
No. I asked you a question. Don't you know what the symbol "?" indicates?
craig, as interesting as it is to debate real issues with intelligent people (and even though, sometimes, one settles for just the former), your childish name calling overwhelms your wholly fallacious arguments and reduces your side of the debate from sometimes clever rhetoric to the level of a tantrum. If I have insulted you, your probably didn't understand it anyway, so I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer, but I'm not going to play your games of "Did not! Did too!" and "Oh yeah? Well you're a poophead!", so be gone. |
