Did You See This @ FoxNews.com?

NO, and I do not recall ever saying that you did, Johnv. If you can show me where I did say that, I will gladly retract that statement.

Regards,
BiR

 

Actually, I think that DiLorenzo makes a valid point as the debate is better described as being between centralists and decentralists since nowadays people such as George W. Bush can be described as big government conservatives. Therefore, simply calling oneself a conservative does not indicate whether one believes that the government that governs best governs least.

 

I assume you will disagree with me again, but I think Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a great author and historian! I have one of his books recommended on my blog.

 

Not weighing in on funding CPB/PBS/NPR, as I have mixed feelings on that issue. However, I am just wondering Ken . . . How is Congress appropriating funds for this any more unconstitutional than them voting funds for highways or any other public benefit?

 

Yes, I disagree with you, but you are my brother in Christ, and I still love you!!

 

The powers that the federal government has are in the U.S. constitution. There is nothing there that gives the federal government the power to take my money and give it to PBS. As far as roads, Article 1, Section 8 does include "To establish post offices and post roads".

 

Wow, I am now convinced.
Let's also stop funding public schools as well.

 

On a federal level, you betcha, BiR.

 

Our representatives act constitutionally when they vote on our behalf to appropriate funding, unless the SCOTUS rules on a legitimate case and finds such spending unconstitutional. Your opinion may be that it is not constitutional, but the fact is, that ain't so.

 

You mean the SCOTUS that made up the idea, I mean ruled, that the U.S. constitution contains a right to an abortion? That SCOTUS?

 

That'd be the one!

 

Wow, exactly who was it that increased federal funding to schools?

 

George W. Bush and a majority of the U.S. Congress - centralists.

 

Ken has a new word of the day. Hahaha.

 

That may be, but Ken's kinder than I am. I call them socialists. :D

 

And a very accurate new word, if I say so myself. ;)

 

I agree with LE, it's a form os socialism!

 

Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education should be abolished; all federal legislation related to education should be repealed. No federal laws subsidizing or regulating the education of children should be enacted. Under no circumstances should the federal government be involved in national teacher certification, educational curricula, textbook selection, learning standards, comprehensive sex education, psychological and psychiatric research testing programs, and personnel.

 

In that case so are schools, sewers, highways, county fairs, and lots of other things. Socialism does not equal Communism.

 

We have been talking about the federal government's powers, MP. State constitutions may give governments the power to do these things.

We really need to get away from the idea in this country that only the federal government can promote and fund government programs. The original idea was that each State was to be a republic and the federal government would basically defend the borders, arbitrate between the States, and oversee a united foreign policy. The States would be free to spend their taxpayers' money as their own constitutions allowed.