Why are you a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Centrist etc..

[30ashopper]

Maybe the most controversial sentence in the entire constitution at the time of ratification. The infamous "Elastic Clause" which says in Article 1 section 8 Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is why I believe the constitution is mostly irrelevant in the creation of laws. It controls the way government should be structured, but even that has been changed by more recent government (See direct election of senators). But the constitution is very contradictory as far as how much power the federal government has: One one side, you have the 10th amendment, which which gives the Federal government NO power beyond the original constitution, then you have the Elastic clause, which gives government all the power in the world.

So that is where the Federal government gets its role in intruding into education at a local level. It is also where government gets the right to control your health care, break up corporations, and control social security.

Even at the time the federalist and anti-federalist argued intensely over what that meant. But it is why government has been able to grow beyond what the constitution specifically allows over time. This clause was obviously the most heavily debated at times like the Hamiltonian bank and the New Deal eras.

This only applies to powers enumerated. It does not give the federal government the power to do anything it wishes. There are no enumerated powers related to education, nor healthcare. The general welfare clause also applies to enumerated powers. Madison was quite clear on this in Federalist fourty one.

 

[hkem1]

This only applies to powers enumerated. It does not give the federal government the power to do anything it wishes. There are no enumerated powers related to education, nor healthcare. The general welfare clause also applies to enumerated powers. Madison was quite clear on this in Federalist fourty one.

You're right about Madison, but you cite him just to fit your argument. Someone on the other side of the debate could use Hamilton to show you that these powers were "implied" and you need to have a broad view of the constitution.

I think ultimately Hamilton won the argument. If you look at McCulloch v. Maryland Chief Justice Marshall said that Maryland could not undermine the federal government and that Congress had the power to create a National Bank, even though the creation of a national bank was not an enumerated power. This case upheld a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government.

So yes, you can take a strict narrow view of the constitution that Madison and Jefferson had, but it can always be counter-argued with Hamilton's broad view of federal powers. And Hamilton has the supreme court behind his argument.

 

[Em]

That's a little something called the 10th Amendment. Education was not guaranteed in the constitution because it was left to the individual states. Massachusetts had compulsory education in the 1600's and it eventually spread to every state.

I would argue that since every state has compulsory education and every state is held to the 14th amendment, that that means every child has a guaranteed right to equal education guaranteed by the law. If you have a way of arguing against that I would be interested in hearing it.

You originally stated, "I believe that every child has a constitutional right to an equal education granted by the government."

I argued that the Constitution doesn't grant equal education. In your argument to state otherwise, you yourself state, "Education was not guaranteed in the constitution," which is accurate and in agreement with me that equal education is not granted by the Constitution.

Nowhere does it say that, and I never said it did. The constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

What you actually wrote was, "I also believe that non-U.S. citizen enemies of freedom around the world should have no constitutional and limited human rights."

So you did state that. The US Constitution protects all people in the USA, not just US citizens.

By the way, if it is law, as you state, that everyone is granted equal education, why do schools limit the people who can attend?

 

[hkem1]

You originally stated, "I believe that every child has a constitutional right to an equal education granted by the government."

I argued that the Constitution doesn't grant equal education. In your argument to state otherwise, you yourself state, "Education was not guaranteed in the constitution," which is accurate and in agreement with me that equal education is not granted by the Constitution.

There is a video clip of when Hillary Clinton is talking her view of School Vouchers and she straight out says: "I read genesis. Cain was marked. Therefore, I believe in White supremacy". People edited the clip to only show those words and plastered all over the internet. Of course in the context of her speech she was not saying that she was a white supremacist.

That's kind of what your doing here. I did say: "Education was not guaranteed in the constitution," but in the context of my post I was explaining that even though the constitution does not have the word education in it, it does indirectly guarantee every child equal education.

I will explain it again for you: The 10th amendment leaves education up to the states. Today EVERY STATE HAS COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAWS Because the 14th amendment says all states must protect all their citizens equally under the law, that means all students are guaranteed an equal education by the constitution.

So, I am not in agreement with you about equal education guaranteed under the constitution.

What you actually wrote was, "I also believe that non-U.S. citizen enemies of freedom around the world should have no constitutional and limited human rights."


So you did state that. The US Constitution protects all people in the USA, not just US citizens.

I would say that is debatable over who the constitution actually applies to. If you have any evidence that would prove one way or another, I am sure many constitutional scholars would love to see it. Because even the top people in constitutional law debate over who the constitution is supposed to apply to.

Obviously, most people agree that the constitution does not apply to any people, but it only applies to the government. The question is, whose rights does the government have to respect. (citizens, non-citizens, terrorists, dolphins, whales, Corporations is a big one)

By the way, if it is law, as you state, that everyone is granted equal education, why do schools limit the people who can attend?

Private Universities and Secondary schools: Limit who can attend but receive little government assistance other than Tax Breaks.

Public elementary and secondary schools: Limit who can attend but those limits apply to EVERYONE, which makes them equal. (limits mostly include neighborhoods)

Public Colleges and Universities: Limit who can attend because no state requires students to attend college so the state is still protecting all citizens under the law.

Basically, if the state requires students to attend the school then all those students must receive an equal education at the schools they are required to attend.

 

[30ashopper]

You're right about Madison, but you cite him just to fit your argument. Someone on the other side of the debate could use Hamilton to show you that these powers were "implied" and you need to have a broad view of the constitution.

I think ultimately Hamilton won the argument. If you look at McCulloch v. Maryland Chief Justice Marshall said that Maryland could not undermine the federal government and that Congress had the power to create a National Bank, even though the creation of a national bank was not an enumerated power. This case upheld a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government.

So yes, you can take a strict narrow view of the constitution that Madison and Jefferson had, but it can always be counter-argued with Hamilton's broad view of federal powers. And Hamilton has the supreme court behind his argument.

So you are a Marshall fan. Hmm, where is this originating from? Is this view based on something a public educator taught you or are you making your own informed decisions here?

 

[hkem1]

So you are a Marshall fan. Hmm, where is this originating from? Is this view based on something a public educator taught you or are you making your own informed decisions here?

Well actually it was a private educator!!

But seriously, I don't think I know enough about the Marshall court right now to really determine whether I like him or not. I do think that the National bank was a terrible idea, and in that respect, I would have to disagree with Hamilton and McCulloch v. Maryland, but I do like the decision because it has had a lasting impact on a broad view of the constitution.

My fear of taking a narrow view of the constitution is that the drafters could not have predicted every problem that Government would have to solve in the future. So, just because the drafters left something out, does not mean they would be against it. So, I think that if a law is passed using the formula that the founders developed, then that law will be constitutional.

I'll give you a better example: in the original constitution senators were elected by state legislators, not through direct elections. The founding fathers did not want to give people that much power in government. But during the progressive era, government decided that direct election of senators would make the government more open and democratic (with a little "d").

I think that the founding fathers, if around today, would like the idea of direct election of senators because in more modern times, it works. But if someone was to take a more narrow view of the constitution, we would still have no ability to elect senators.

 

[30ashopper]

Well actually it was a private educator!!

Whew. I've experienced my fair share of attempted indoctrination via public schooling, so I was curious.

But seriously, I don't think I know enough about the Marshall court right now to really determine whether I like him or not. I do think that the National bank was a terrible idea and in that respect I would have to disagree with Hamilton and McCulloch v. Maryland but I do like the decision because it has had a lasting impact on a broad view of the constitution.

My fear of taking a narrow view of the constitution is that the drafters could not have predicted every problem that Government would have to solve in the future. So, just because the drafters left something out does not mean they would be against it.

In McCulloch, Marshall ruled that so long as the attained goal was a reasonable extension of an enumerated power, it should be accepted. In the case of the national bank this had to do with collecting taxes. But even Marshall felt that the action must be an obvious extension of those responsibilities. What enumerated power does education and healthcare fall under in your view? I personally don't see it.

So, I think that if a law is passed using the formula that the founders developed, then that law will be constitutional. I wonder what the founders would have thought about having a Black president and a women secretary of state in the same administration.

What difference does it make what the founders would think about this? We amended to provide equal rights to all races, and both sexes. This was a decision made by a subsequent generation. The founders might not agree being slave owners, but they would have approved of the process by which we did it!

I'll give you a better example: in the original constitution senators were elected by state legislators, not through direct elections. The founding fathers did not want to give people that much power in government. But during the progressive era, government decided that direct election of senators would make the government more open and democratic (with a little "d").

I think that the founding fathers, if around today would like the idea of direct election of senators because in more modern times, it works. But if someone was to take a more narrow view of the constitution, we would still have no ability to elect senators.

Bad example, IMHO. How did we go about changing this in the Constitution? It was not based on a ruling by the Supreme Court.

 

[hkem1]

In McCulloch, Marshall ruled that so long as the attained goal was a reasonable extension of an enumerated power, it should be accepted. In the case of the national bank this had to do with collecting taxes. But even Marshall felt that the action must be an obvious extension of those responsibilities. What enumerated power does education and healthcare fall under in your view? I personally don't see it.

I don't think there is an enumerated power which deals with education. But there is an amendment, if the Equal protection clause of the 14th says that state governments must protect all citizens equally under the law, that means every child must have equal access to state required and funded education.

And if a state is not following the constitution then the Federal government is supposed to intervene. That is why the Department of Education is constitutional.

What difference does it make what the founders would think about this? We amended to provide equal rights to all races, and both sexes. This was a decision made by a subsequent generation. The founders might not agree being slave owners, but they would have approved of the process by which we did it!

I agree. That is what I was trying to say. You did a much better job of it though.

Bad example, IMHO. How did we go about changing this in the Constitution? It was not based on a ruling by the Supreme Court.

It was through ratification of the amendment by three-fourths of the states that it was changed in the constitution, just like the other amendments. My point is, direct election of senators in 1913 was extremely unconstitutional, but that doesn't make it wrong. The founding fathers set up a system so that future generations could change the constitution as they see necessary. So there was no supreme court case, but if someone had a narrow view of the constitution they would be against the direct election of senators because, at the time, it was unconstitutional.

The whole point of my argument isn't about whether something is constitutional or not, it's that it doesn't matter, because we can change that.

There are a lot of very good arguments against the recent Health-care legislation, and I agree with most of them, but saying the founding fathers or the constitution is against it, is useless because in reality, it doesn't matter. What the constitution originally said didn't matter with the seventeenth amendment and it doesn't matter now.

What does matter though, is that the constitution set up a genius structure of government that has allowed us to become the prosperous nation we have become.

 

[30ashopper]

I don't think there is an enumerated power which deals with education. But there is an amendment, if the Equal protection clause of the 14th says that state governments must protect all citizens equally under the law, that means every child must have equal access to state required and funded education.

And if a state is not following the constitution then the Federal government is supposed to intervene. That is why the Department of Education is constitutional.

I don't disagree with you on that, I just don't see what the Department of Education has to do with it. The Dept. of Ed., really, does very little. Reagan described it as a boondogle. It's basicallly a 30 billion a year revenue suck, serving little purpose other than to bloat the federal government's civil service ranks.

Enjoyed the discussion. It's great to see younger generations digging into this stuff and formulating their own opinions.

 

[futurebeachbum]

I'll give you a better example: in the original constitution senators were elected by state legislators, not through direct elections. The founding fathers did not want to give people that much power in government. But during the progressive era, government decided that direct election of senators would make the government more open and democratic (with a little "d").

I think that the founding fathers, if around today, would like the idea of direct election of senators because in more modern times, it works. But if someone was to take a more narrow view of the constitution, we would still have no ability to elect senators.

I disagree 100% with this. The Senate was intended to be an elite, appointed organization.

The founding fathers had vision that the House of Representatives would pretty much turn over every 2 years (because a man couldn't leave his farm for longer than that.) This would insure that the House would always be populated with the 'common man' who had a very current view of what real life was like. In point of fact, this pretty much held true until reelection rates started climbing steeply around 1900. For much of the time before 1900 reelection rates were between 40 and 60%. Now its closer to 90% (although hopefully this years mid-term elections could break that trend.)

At the same time, a House with an average experience governing of < 2 years would need a counter balance. The Senate was intended to be the steadying hand on government. Senators were to be somewhat 'above the fray'. They were typically also more 'upper class' (ie: richer) than the Congressmen in the house (hence they could be away to serve a 6 year term.) Changing the Senate to a popularly elected position eliminated the ability of the Senate to remain above the fray.

To pass a law, these two very differently motivated groups of people would have to come together and negotiate on their differences. This ability to compromise from two very divergent positions did 2 things. First, it kept them from passing too many laws. Second, it required that some percentage of the House and Senate actually be Statesmen who cared enough to work things out. Both of these features are sadly missing in our government for the past 40-50 years.

Rather than endorsing the 17th Amendment, I believe the founding fathers would be horrified by both the conduct of elections in general and specifically by the re-election rates in the House.