why don't you tell us exactly what you stand for on a plethora of issues first
No, why don't you just continue to make an ass out of yourself by assuming you know.
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!
An example of what? What provisions of the constitution have been "trampled" by any policy I have advocated? You still haven't answered that simple question.
so you are saying the federal government only has jurisdiction when the constitution is being violated?
"Jurdisdiction" over public education in general and directing those programs the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, have elected, in the national interest, to fund are two entirely different things.
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.
He didn't say anything in that quote about "domain", but if that was the context of his comments, then his position is not inconsistent with mine. Domain implies authority to control and, in the case of education, the federal government does not have that authority. However, the constitution does give Congress the power to appropriate money to provide for the general welfare of the nation. I see no prohibition in the Constitution against Congress spending money on education. Furthermore, if the Congress is appropriating money for education, then 1) it is doing so as our elected representatives, so if you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote to replace them; and 2) I would expect my representatives to exercise some oversight as to how that money should be spent and not just confiscate and redistribute my money willy-nilly and without controls.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
So, if by quoting Jefferson or Hamilton on a particular issue, I must accept their positions on all issues, I take it you accept all of FDR's positions. Doesn't that make you some kind of pinko, new deal, socialist, elitist, redistributionist, weak-kneed, liberal democrat?
so what is your point? the lame argument that because i don't hold the majority opinion, i'm wrong?
No, just that you were outvoted. Perhaps if you go around insulting everyone who disagrees with you, you'll sway more people to your views and end up with a Congress that won't spend money on education. Yep, that usually works.
"...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."
Ah, but where any of the areas of commerce listed above are conducted across state lines or with foreign nations, the federal government very clearly does have jurisdiction. Why do you think some banks, over the years, chose to remain state chartered institutions and only operate within that state? They wanted to be subject only to the laws and regulations of that state. Same goes for securities, insurance, agriculture and business in general.
Besides, either you took that quote out of context and his point was not what it appears to be, or he decided he was flat out wrong. After all, we have him to thank (or blame) for a wide array of federal regulations and social welfare programs. Of course, you aren't entitled to disagree with them because you quoted him and therefore must agree with him on everything.
who says states are obligated? i don't see that in the constitution, do you?
Where did I say you'd find that in the US Constitution? I said many states' constitutions created rights and obligation within those states and gave you specific examples. You want more, go read all 50 of them yourself.
...the right to education must mean the federal or state government should dictate how it should be implemented.
Where did I say anything about the federal government "dictating" anything having to do with state or local education programs or funding (except of course in the event that they violate the US Consitution)? Hell, I didn't even say education was a fundamental right under the US Constitution. In fact, the US Supreme Court said it wasn't. But, West Virginia, in the example I gave, apparently says it is a fundamental right of West Virginians. States, in case you didn't know, are allowed to expand upon, but not reduce, the rights specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.
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.
Now that's an intelligent argument! Is the building federal property perhaps? If so, then yes.
If not, the it must either be state/local government property or private property. 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.
...i suppose you are going to call for federalization of security protection for our waterways...
Ever hear of the Coast Guard?
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.
Gosh, you got me there. I guess "we" won't be able to confiscate all your money and property after all. Too bad. It would've been fun.
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'm sorry you lost a friend and comrade when he was executed, but yes, that was a federal matter. First, it was a federal building he blew up, so the federal government was in fact responsible for its security. Second, until he was caught, we had no idea 1) whether the bombing was conducted by a foreign or a domestic attacker and 2) whether there was a continuing threat to federal property, federal employees or the population in general. Third, there was a multi-state search for the criminals/terrorists and a multi-state investigation, including whether explosives had been transported across state lines.
Are you suggesting that the federal government had no jurisdiction over your comrade? |
