>> No, why don't you just continue to make an ass out of yourself by assuming you know. <<
i'm left to assume when you are too much of a pussy to take a clear stance and defend it.
>> 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. <<
i can't help it if you try to obfuscate the issues so you won't have to defend a position. let's get down to brass tacks. 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?
>> "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. <<
fine. try to obfuscate. do you believe the federal government should have any say whether or not school prayer is allowed in school? SIMPLE QUESTION.
>> He didn't say anything in that quote about "domain", <<
hmm. let's revisit your jefferson quote.
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.
what does that say? jefferson says education should be a "public concern" that he took an interest in. so what. you're quote doesn't say squat. i helped your cause out by finding a quote where he specifically thought it should be within the scope of powers granted to the federal government. 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.
>> Domain implies authority to control... <<
domain n. field or sphere of activity or influence.
do i need to look up the definition of the difference between control and influence? the federal government absolutely has influenced the domain of public education. it has even controlled part of it. i never said it totally or wholly controlled it. not yet, anyway!
>> and, in the case of education, the federal government does not have that authority <<
so then you would agree that the federal govt has no business telling a school they can't have prayer in school, references to God, etc?
>> However, the constitution does give Congress the power to appropriate money to provide for the general welfare of the nation <<
aww, here we come to the part where you take "promote the general welfare" to support whatever agenda you are pushing. so lame. 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 pathetic commie liberals would like to use "promote the general welfare" as an excuse for all your socialist, marxist, communist, despotic ideas.
>> I see no prohibition in the Constitution against Congress spending money on education <<
dummy. the constitution would be thousands of pages if everything that was prohibited was listed. obviously the founding fathers were more practical than you and simply said:
"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."
any power not granted to the united states by the constitution is reserved to the states or the people. 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. both who explicitly said it was not a power granted to the federal govt.
>> 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 <<
gee, what do you think i have been advocating? electing officials who adhere to the tenets of our founding and who will strictly adhere to the constitution, rather than trample it? you think?
>> 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. <<
but of course! you have the illogical belief that congress can decide how to spend our tax dollars better than parents, teachers, and communities! liberals are stupid and ignorant, so it's only natural that you think people aren't smart enough to figure out how to spend their own money, hence we need a bunch of college campus commies like you with fancy degrees up there in washington dictating to us a better way.
>> So, if by quoting Jefferson or Hamilton on a particular issue, I must accept their positions on all issues <<
no, i just find it amusing that you like to claim that you are proudly aligned with people like madison, hamilton, jefferson, etc. then i provide evidence showing they totally contradict what you say and believe.
as for fdr, whether i agree with him or not, he specifically spoke to the question about the powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution regarding education. it was clear as can be, and supported what jefferson said. why don't you find me two presidents (including one who wrote hundreds of laws and the declaration of independence) where they specifically interpret the constitution as granting power to the federal government with regards to education.
>> No, just that you were outvoted <<
gee, i guess galileo was outvoted when he said the earth was round, not flat. i guess that meant he was wrong.
>> Perhaps if you go around insulting everyone who disagrees with you <<
you drew first blood. you insulted pat buchanan after i posted an article where you disagreed with him.
>> you'll sway more people to your views <<
what makes you think i want to do that.
>> and end up with a Congress that won't spend money on education. Yep, that usually works <<
i may be arrogant, but not arrogant enough to believe i'm going to change the hearts and minds of america. i leave that to smarter, more eloquent, and more dedicated men such as alan keyes.
>> 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 <<
i'm not arguing that the govt can federalize airport security. i am arguing that they shouldn't. like i said, the govt can impose punitive levels of taxation to pay for all this pork but i trust you aren't in favor of a 99% tax rate.
>> 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 <<
that must be it. my quotes are clear concise, and get to the point. your quotes are vague, ideological in nature, and don't address the issue at hand. nice try.
>> After all, we have him to thank (or blame) for a wide array of federal regulations and social welfare programs <<
yeah, it's a damn shame politicians lie and say one thing and do another.
>> Of course, you aren't entitled to disagree with them because you quoted him and therefore must agree with him on everything. <<
all i did was post a quote from fdr that was diametrically opposed to the assertion you made. don't blame me.
>> Where did I say you'd find that in the US Constitution? <<
you didn't. i am simply pointing out that the constitution doesn't implore the states an obligation to control education.
i said...
"even the state government should have a limited role."
you said,
"On the contrary..."
>> 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. <<
i don't see any universal obligation for states to control education. they may have opted to, but it is not a requirement. i am simply arguing that it should mainly reside a function of communities, not state or federal.. you said "on the contrary". i'm asking you to show me where it says what i am advocating is not possible.
>> 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)? <<
and you wonder why i supposedly never answer your questions. i don't see why i have to take so much time explaining such simple concepts. the federal govt takes my tax dollars. part of those dollars go to fund the education and other depts. pres bush mandates (dictating) that states must test their children (at least if they want money). i'm sure you are aware of his push for standardized testing. then the govt (based on the results of those tests) decides how to dole out the money. MY MONEY THAT THEY TOOK. right there the federal govt just DICTATED how to spend my money on education, rather than letting parents and teachers in my own community decide how to spend our own money best. this is just ONE example. if you can't understand simple concepts like these where i talk about the federal govt grabbing power and taking away my liberties, then why should i bother?
>> 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. <<
now you are trying to backpedal and act as if you believe it's a state issue.
>> 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. i dunno, ask a pilot like william the rules regarding 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. i suppose according to you it's only a national or vital interest to the country when people attack federal property now? what, are you abandoning all sense of liberal compassion now?
>> Ever hear of the Coast Guard? <<
ok, my mistake. let's say water reservoirs.
>> I'm sorry you lost a friend and comrade <<
better watch out commie, or there might be more timothy mcveigh's out there. 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? “sic semper tyrannis". bonus question. do you know which individual shouted that before committing an infamous murder?
>> Are you suggesting that the federal government had no jurisdiction over your comrade? <<
are you putting words in my mouth? |
