Posted on 06/06/2003 7:24:02 AM PDT by dark_lord
I'm pro-life, so I would never suggest forced abortions, but clearly there are some people who are unfit to be parents. Cutting off the welfare money after a certain number of kids (preferably one) would be a way to contain the problem, but that still doesn't solve the bigger problem.
Believe me, if Mr. and Mrs. (or Ms.) Troublemaker had been called into school and told their 7 or 8yo child was permanently expelled from all classes for failure to follow the rules they'd care. It should not be the school's problem to maintain a willfully unruly child in the class to the detriment of the rest of the class.
I don't think they would care. If they would have cared in the first place their child would not have been such a troublemaker by that age. In any case, there would be some liberal advocacy group that would step in and sue anybody that would deprive a lovely child of the right to an education. That is, unless the child was a Christian and made any mention of God, in which case the parents would be told the child deserved the punishment.
My point exactly. Among the liberal/criminal segment of the black American community, distancing oneself from supposedly "white" norms of behavior such as honest work, staying in school, obeying the law, etc, and embracing the gangster-rapper values instead (whether in wannabe-pretense or in truth) is considered to be "authentically black." Students who actually do their homework are mocked as "acting white" (an unintended compliment to us!)
But that African father proves that the lawless urban gangsters are not, in fact, "authentically black" at all. That African father thinks that failure to perform in school, is a crime punishable by whipping. (Oddly enough, my own white father thought exactly the same thing.)
Conan gives this answer. It's loosely based on the original, but it's cleaned up.
My point at #1 above -- there is no right to an education. It is, and should be treated as, a privilege given to those members of our society that follow the rules.
I would tend to agree, except when they take your money to fund it. Then it becomes a right or give the money back.
Ha, Ha...Nice try but the US is still the best in science....with all races except one well represented....We have the best of everything no thanks to some "hangers on" who still want a free ride
So we should all have the right to drive an aircraft carrier; fly a B1; pull donuts with an Abrahms tank? Seems as if the Big-L Libertarian position would suit that scenario. We fund lots of things in the society we choose to live in that convey no right to anything, but are necessary for the well-ordered functioning of that society.
I do agree that the Feds have no right, power, or privilege granted that enables them to mandate anything concerning the local schools, including dissemination of federal tax monies to enforce their unconstitutional mandates. Correcting that usurpation would go a long way to putting the public schools back in the mostly capable hands of the local parents and the States.
No, but we have the right to the common defense. The money does provide that right(now if you've paid $250,000,000 in taxes you might have some argument to fly a B-1 but you would have to buy the gas, buy your own airfield, etc.etc.). We have the right to practice religion, that does not mean we can use human sacrifice in our services. In any event, I agree completely that the federal government has no business in the area of education. Abolish the department of education!
The Supreme Court disagrees; you have no right to the prior intervention of the Police to a criminal act, even when there is credible evidence that said crime will occur, or is occurring when you call. Disbanding the federal DoE would be a good step. The amount of money squandered over the past century should be producing more Einsteins; maybe the feds should declare a 'War on Education' -- after all they've done such a good job on Poverty and Drugs, eh? ;^)
What does that have to do with the common defense? I don't have a right to all of my wages at one time even though I have a right to my wages. The article you point to makes no mention of the Supreme Court. I mentions the DC district court. I suppose it is populated with the likes of those in the 9th circuit. In any case, "insure domestic tranquility" does mean something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.