Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL?
NewsWithViews ^ | 1/20/03 | Lynn M. Stuter

Posted on 01/21/2003 2:14:34 PM PST by hsmomx3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-144 last
To: Eva
NEA Hastens Death of American Education

Solution Volume 10 Number 26 Bauman: Home Schooling in the United States

141 posted on 01/24/2003 10:57:12 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: inquest
No, not really. The studies Congress commissioned to study the issue claim that the federal workforce is underpaid by approximately 20%. But that is over the whole work force certain elements within it are paid much less than private equivalents: managers and high executives. After all the President's salary is not even 1/100th of CEOs of some companies. Senators and Reps. are not even paid more than the 6th vp of some corporations. Soldiers are very poorly paid. Paying soldiers higher salaries would be very costly.

There are no private sector equivalents for the scientists, physicists and mathematicians who build the bombs or missles or other highly technical weaponry. Without the defense related work the employment of physicists would drop precipatiously. Thus, there would be few physicists trained if private employment was all there was. Even those not working directly for the government often are performing government funded research or projects. Since that skill demands at least 8 yrs for a pHD during wartime there could be shortages with no way of rapidly increasing supply. After all the Mahattan project could draw on the scientific talent of Europe which had fled the Nazis. Jewish brainpower provided the means of developing the Bomb. Thanks Adolf.

"Werponry" LoL where did I come up with that one?
142 posted on 01/24/2003 12:29:32 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
After re-reading the Opinion last night I have concluded that I may not have a true copy since there are various words that do not fit the context and portions do not seem to flow from those preceding it.

I don't doubt this. I have seen various "edited/excerpts" versions in print that paraphrase what the author thinks Hamilton said rather than provide the entire text. Similar "revisionist" history can be found in how the Bill of Rights is sometimes treated (for example, describing the First amendment as allowing for freedom of the press and separation of church and state, rather than providing the actual text of the amendment).

As you stated H said that the sovereignty of the government and ability to act was total within the powers granted as long as the actions did not conflict with the constitution and which were not immoral.

Yes, as long as the power was "within the powers granted". Education is not among those. Hamilton was very clear that the subject of the action still had to be regarding one of the enumerated powers (described by Hamilton variously as "vested" powers, "powers delegated", "sovereign power as to certain things", etc.)

The thinking of the American leaders after WWII and during the fifties was that the nature of the newly emerging technologies of war and the civilian military element required a new educational approach. There is no doubt that the power granted to defend the nation means that the federal government can encourage and establish institutions and programs to further that end

Yes there is doubt. The proper response to this situation should have been a constitutional amendment. Considering the political situation of the time, it would have easily passed.

This involvement has also been the source of massive government grants for scientific research. Since modern warfare requires the ability to respond rapidly to technological challenges there appears to be no alternative to federal involvement in scientific education at the least

I do not disagree about the need for scientific research. But the correct solution isn't to ignore the Constitution by claiming practical necessity, but instead to amend the Constitution through the process that the Constitution itself provides.

That also justifies and makes constitutional federal involvement in a degree in education

No it does not. It would only justify and make constitutional federal involvement in the education of those who were actually in Federal service (for example, if the scientists doing the research were actually enlisted in the military, and doing research directly related to the achievement of a military goal, such as weapons or medical research, etc.).

Do you doubt the constitutionality of ROTC programs? Or even training with firearms?

No, because these fall under a specific enumerated power ("To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia").

The tenth amendment was not written with education in mind.

Perhaps not specifically, but it was generally. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to clarify that the Constitution was one of enumerated powers only; and that any power not granted to the Federal government was the domain of the states (or respectively, the people). Since education is not one of the enumerated powers, it is a power reserved to the states (with the few exceptions already noted that do relate directly to the enumerated powers).

As far Roosevelt and socialism go. You cannot serious maintain that the creation of government programs is the same as the proletarian ownership of the means of production

There is more to socialism than just ownership of the means of production. There is also the aspect of redistribution of wealth, which government programs almost always involve.

A welfare state is not the same as socialism.

No, but it is an aspect of socialism / collectivism.

What ever you don't like is not the same as socialism

It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it is a matter of it being illegal under the Constitution, which many FDR programs clearly were. He used the same expansive reading (i.e., ignoring the actual words) of the Constitution that you seem to advocate.

Rooseveltian politics is closer to the patron/client relation in ancient Rome than socialism

The creation of a federal Department of Education has been a plank of the Socialist Party platform since before the time of FDR. That it has actually been implemented does not mean it is no longer a socialist concept.

While necessity or crisis is often (always) the cry of the tyrant every cry of necessity or crisis is not always false as you cleverly imply. There was a real crisis in the 1930s and the nation was far closer to more radical solutions than you seem to acknowledge

No it wasn't. And even if it were, the Constitution provides a simple mechanism for the resolution of such issues; the amendment process. If the people really were so close to revolution as you claim, then it follows that they would have rapidly ratified any such amendment that was truly necessary to grant the federal government the desired powers.

Roosevelt's actions may not have been to your liking or mine

It has nothing to do with my "liking"; it has everything to do with legality. The fact is that many of FDR's actions were clearly unconstitutional, and his disregard of the Constitution was the direct cause of creeping socialism from which the United States currently suffers.

Even the "radical" actions he took were not enough

A lot of economists (just about all except the Keynesian socialists) will argue that his actions caused far more problems than they resolved, and extended a slightly-worse-than-normal business cycle downturn into a major economic depression. Several other, more constitutional, actions (such as correcting the tariff and monetary policies that caused the problem in the first place) could have resolved the crisis with far less pain and suffering.

Hoover's philosophy may have been closer to what you would like

No, I believe Hoover was an idiot. He had the ideal (and perfectly constitutional) mechanism for economic stimulus (repayment of the monies owed to the WWI bonus marchers) and instead used the opportunity to commit an atrocity.

Starving people are not always willing to consult/stay within constitutional law to feed their children.

There is no one starving in the United States today. Why do the unconstitutional policies remain?

That was what Roosevelt was facing.

Again, this is a bit of revisionism of history. Yes, the great depression was bad, but it wasn't that bad. Those raving socialists and anarchists had been in the big cities causing problems long before there were any economic issues for them to exploit.

143 posted on 01/24/2003 3:05:31 PM PST by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Without the defense related work the employment of physicists would drop precipatiously.

I'm sure it would, but that's not the point. What you need to demonstrate is that without federal support of science education, the number of physicists would so drop. This would be rather hard for you to do, since there's little if anything in a high-school education that's specific to jobs that have predominantly military applications. The math and science courses at that level of education are applicable to a wide variety of civilian professions, and there would still be plenty of demand for these curricula even without the benevolent guiding hand of the feds.

But even that's not the point. You brought up ROTC schools earlier. Of course those aren't in the same category of public schools, since the students there are being taught by military officers for specific military purposes. If there's some magic skill that needs to be taught from the high school level, that the military can't do without, then the only constitutional option would be for military officers to conduct such courses for students who would then owe something back to the military. IOW, it would have to be a strictly military program. Providing at-large grants to public schools with no regard for whether there's any guarantee that the fruits thereof would be put to military use is not only inefficient; it's an unmistakable step beyond the constitutional grant of power.

"Werponry" LoL where did I come up with that one?

Probably the same place you came up with "precipatiously" (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

144 posted on 01/24/2003 6:06:29 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-144 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson