Bush bill suppresses funding for students and appropriates $2m for presidential yacht

So, anyway, Debby, what do you think of the massive budget, with record spending levels and HUGE social programs?

 

Debby defends the President on one point, and then ignores the other.

 

Wouldn't it be nice (since we are living in the USA) to get behind our President and pray for him daily and stop tearing him to pieces???

He has been placed in authority over us, for the next four years, and he IS our Commander in Chief...

Whether we like the man or not, we should have respect for the office of President, which he holds.

 

I do pray for him, as I did President Clinton.

There are areas where I do not support him, just like I did with President Clinton.

Saying that, picking on him because of a yacht is a little over the top, IMHO.

 

I do respect the office of the President. And, if you read my posts above, I defended the yacht, because I think he deserves it.

But, as long as 3800 babies are being killed each day and he reamins silent, why should I?

And as long as he's spending money at a rate that will bankrupt our nation and jeopazrdize the financial wellbing of our children (what is called "bad stewaedship"), why should citizens just go along and not say anything?

BTW...he has not been placed in authority over us. He is our employee to administer the business of our government. He lives under the same laws as us.

 

No man can have authority without God giving it to him...

 

Don't appreciate the prodding posts above, reminding me of what little boys do when they want to pick a fight.

Just wanted to tell what I knew from personal experience about the yacht. No more. No less. I participate in discussions, not fights.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Who said anything about a fight? I simply asked your opinion.

I agree with you on the yacht, BTW.

 

So much for the OP and it's accusation of political agenda. Clearly, the political agenda belongs to the source of the OP.

Yes, it wold be nice, but ripping on the POTUS is easy to do, plus it makes us feel better. That's why we do it so often. It doesn't make it right, though.

 

Our leaders are not our masters. Not yet anyway. Criticism is what keeps them from becoming even worse.

 

Just out of curiousity, could someone please show me where in the Constitution the government is given the authority to take tax payers' money to pay students' tuition in the first place?

For those who oppose the funding for the upkeep of the presidential yacht, do you also oppose funding for the upkeep of the White House or the Smithsonian or other historical and memorial landmarks?

 

"Promote the general welfare" in the Preamble. If you want the specific language authorizing aid to education, it's right before the section that says the taxpayers are required to pay for a yacht for the president to play on, or to maintain old things because they are "historical."

 

"Promote the general welfare" is a statement of purpose, not a provision for lawmaking.

It's as though I asked you to bake me a cherry pie, and gave you the recipe, which began with the words "this recipe will make a delicious pie". You made a pie, but with peaches instead of cherries. When I protest, you say "it says "delicious", and peaches make a delicious pie".

The Constitution VERY specifically and deliberately defines the powers of the US government, and the "general welfare" statement was not intended to be a "weasel" phrase to give the government unlimited power based on someone's opinion of what would be delicious.

 

If the president wants to play on a yacht that I payed for he has my permission.

BTW, unlike many/most of us, he's on the job 24/7 no matter where he is and what he is doing.

I'm not happy with much of this administration's policies, but let him play for goodness sake, he has the weight of the entire world on his shoulders.

May God bless him and give him the wisdom and courage to make righteous decisions.

HankD

 

I'm just observing what the courts say about it. There is more justification for aid to education, than there is for the upkeep of a yacht.

While you may have a case that such aid to education is unconstitutional, the founders clearly ignored any difficulties when they passed the Northwest Ordinances, and allocated resources for the establishment and maintainence of public schools in each township.

 

I've heard about that (establishment of local schools) but have never read much detail. Do you have sources that detail the federal role?

 

The Northwest Ordinance of 1785 set aside land in every township to be used to support public education. Additional resources were allocated in 1787.

Since the Constitution was not ratified until 1788, these federal efforts in public education were not made under the Constitution.

The first federal aid to education under the Constitution was the Morrill Act in 1862, which is responsible for the land grant state universities.

The first federal involvement in terms of curriculum and standards was begun in 1914 under Woodrow Wilson.
http://www.technology.eku.edu/facstaff/FARDO/TTE261/UPDATED/Lesson5.htm

 

Figures. 1862 and 1914 are two pivotal periods where our nation took some wrong turns. Especially 1914.

Thanks for the link, that's a great summary. Interesting that it was a "conservative Republican" who pretty much put the nail in the coffin of local education with "No Child Left Alone".