Protect against Nazi America

I guess that your point was liberals lack any sense of logic, then? Stating a fact about how someone acts is not ad hominem, BTW.

 

Wow, you really do endorse some extreme positions. A society without a solid public education system is doomed. Perhaps that explains a lot of what I see here.

 

Yeah, its called the 10th amendment to the Constitution. REAL extreme... :thumbsup:

A society where the education of its children is solidly in the hands of its parents, and where the government does not dictate to the parents what to teach their children, is not a "doomed" society, but a "free" society. What ON EARTH makes you think that the government has a right to take my tax dollars, and then use it to force curriculum down my kids throat that I disagree with?

Tell you what: we can have a public school if they only teach what I believe. I'll take your kids, and teach them about how God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago, that Homosexuality is a sin, that Hell is real, that the liberal agenda is a disgusting move away from God, that is orchestrated by the devil himself, that abortion should be illegal in ALL its forms, because it is a murder of a child, that life begins at conception, etc., and take your money, from you, in order to do it.

 

And every public school system is run under the authority of a state board of education.

 

Which is under the oversight of the Department of Education. Try again. :laugh:

 

Not true. School systems and/or states are free to decline federal funding and not come under the purview of the Department of Education.

 

Yeah, they just can't stop the government from taking those taxes. Its kind of like "optional" unionization. "You don't have to be in the union, but we are still gonna take this money out of your paycheck,"

Again, the 10th amendment clearly forbids ANY Federal agency...not a so-called "optional" federal agency. Try again.:tonofbricks:

 

Wrong again. The Constitution allows for this in Article I, section 8.

 

EHHH! Your wrong! What is his consolation prize, Johnny?

Article 1 Section 8 gives the Federal Government the right to levy taxes, for the express purposes listed, which are for the general welfare. Among these specific powers that can be supported by taxes, are things like raising and maintaining an army, and to establish post offices. Public schools are NOT included. The 10th amendment then forbids the federal government from exercising any authority not specifically delegated...which includes collecting taxes for things that are not designated...which includes public schools.

Try again..

 

The Taxing and Spending Clause is an independent grant of power which gives Congress plenary authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. See Helvering v. Davis.

 

I don't care how Mr. New Deal's puppet Supreme Court Justices reinterpreted the law. Liberal judges do that all the time...it does not change what the Constitution actually SAYS. Earlier Supreme Courts cases (such as United States vs. Butler), interpreted this properly, as a clear usurpation of States rights, an overstepping of government control, and a clear violation of the Constitution: which it is. The Federal Government has essentially used a creative loophole to undermine States rights. Saying "We are going to take all your money, and if you want it back you will do what we say" is CLEARLY outside the intentions of the founders. Any clear thinking person can easily see this.

Again, the Department of Ed. is NOT Constitutional (and neither is Roe vs. Wade...another interesting "reinventing" of the Constitution, that was nevertheless wrong).

 

Nope

Especially in light of the fact that the attorneys pushing it lied as did she.

 

I'm a textualist so I'm not very concerned with what the Founders intended. I care about the text of the Constitution. Furthermore, the broad interpretation of the Taxing and Spending Clause goes back to Alexander Hamilton; it wasn't invented by "liberal judges", so trying to debunk it using an originalist method of interpretation isn't going to work. The Department of Education is very clearly constitutional.

 

[sarcasm]Well then maybe we should not worry about the intent of the authors of scripture. [/sarcasm]

That is the craziest thing I have heard yet.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...is-enough-why-general-welfare-limits-spending

 

See Mandy's comment. Hamilton's interpretation was soundly rejected.

The rest of your comment does not even justify a response. You basically just said, "I don't care what was meant when they wrote it. I only care about how it can be twisted and manipulated to support what I want it to support."

The text clearly outlines what the "General Welfare" is, and public schools are not included. Therefore, it is excluded by the 10th amendment.

 

It doesn't matter what the Congress and President think. It's the job of the judiciary to interpret laws.

Nope. It has nothing to do with what I want it to support. It has everything to do with what the Constitution actually says. If you want to change what the Constitution says, there is an amendment process. Of course, case law has weight in interpretation because of stare decisis.

 

The left sure has twisted the intent of the constitution. Their job is not to reinterpret it but to interpret the original intent. Without the original intent the Constitution has no real value. Anyone can come along to the court and make it say what ever they want. This is very odd and unreasonable thinking.

 

Textualism has a long history and is regarded as one of the main systems of legal interpretation. There's nothing liberal about it. What I would consider judicially liberal is the living Constitution view. As a textualist, I believe the Constitution means what it says it means. Originalism allows people to twist the Constitution by taking the views of some of the Framers and declaring it to be the "original intent". In many cases there were many people involved in framing a constitutional provision. It is the height of folly to claim to know how the Framers would have applied the Constitution to every situation centuries later. That's why we have the text of the Constitution as interpreted by case law to guide us.

 

Its the job of the Judiciary to enforce and interpret laws...not to exploit loopholes, and re-interpret it as they see fit. What the writers meant MUST be taken into account, or the document ceases to have any authority...the real authority would then be a bloated Judiciary, such as we have now.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with what it says. If it did, you would recognize that it clearly limits the powers of Government to the items listed. The Constitution "actually says" what the "general welfare" applies to. Article 1 Section 8, REITERATES this limitation at the end of the list, saying...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

In other words, those not listed are excluded by the 10th amendment.