H.R. 899: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”

[BotanyBoy]

You can't have both of those positions.

You can't complain that states could have made really easy tests under NCLB, AND like charter schools which have no tests at all.

LMFAO!!!

Cite?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Article I, section 8

I'm quite familiar with Art. I, s. 8. Do I need to list the enumerated powers here?

There is nothing within the enumerated powers that support federal regulation of education.

Given Amend. X, where do you find any such federal authority?


I don't address the rest of your objections ad seriatum because they arise out of the above, are matters of opinion (how much taxation is reasonable), or matters of style (if you don't like "blackmail," which do you prefer, "extort"? "coerce"? Let's go with "coerce," because you're correct in that these federal practices do not meet the legal definitions of "blackmail" [the common law term] or "extortion" [the MPC term]). As far as knowing how the money is used, given that my primary employment right now is funded under IDEA, I'm confident I have a pretty good idea.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

You can't have both of those positions.

You can't complain that states could have made really easy tests under NCLB, AND like charter schools which have no tests at all.

You can't advocate accountability and at the same time advocate no accountability.

Seriously, aren't you a gym teacher?

Admit it.

Oh! Good call!

That's certainly consistent with someone who is apparently proud of this fact:

Then again, I work with several high school gym teachers, and they're all a lot smarter than him.


.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Given Amend. X, where do you find any such federal authority?

Common welfare....like it or not those words are open and broad enough to legally let the gubbmints nose under the tent and it doesn't violate 10A for the fed to offer assistance/programs supporting education.

Let's go with "coerce," because you're correct in that these federal practices do not meet the legal definitions of "blackmail" [the common law term] or "extortion" [the MPC term]).

Coerce sounds good if you want to vilify incentive's and welfare.

Fact still remains (because 10A) any state that wants to tell the fed to go fuck it self is more than welcome to run their own education programs at their earliest convenience.

Just say no to the welfare and NCLB dies....that fuckin' simple.

It's up to the people of the states to reclaim their 10A rights, as long as they continue to surrender those rights for that federal cheese that's on them.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Common welfare....like it or not those words are open and broad enough to legally let the gubbmints nose under the tent and it doesn't violate 10A for the fed to offer assistance/programs supporting education.

The phrase is not "common welfare," it is "general welfare." (A minor point, as I know what you meant. May I say it is refreshing, after spinning my wheels in the mud Sgt.Spidey calls a mind, to debate this with somebody who actually knows what he's talking about!)

As early as George Washington's presidency, James Madison, the primary architect of the Constitution, argued that expanding federal authority beyond the enumerated powers was not the meaning, intent, or purpose of "general welfare." To read "general welfare" as you would makes the remainder of art I, s. 8, along with Amend. X, mere surplusage, an effect to always be avoided in statutory (including constitutional) construction. Eig, L.M., Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends, pp. 13-14 (Congressional Research Service 2011).

Fact still remains (because 10A) any state that wants to tell the fed to go fuck it self is more than welcome to run their own education programs at their earliest convenience.

Just say no to the welfare and NCLB dies....

Except that the federal government already taxes the states' citizens so highly for things like the DoE, if the states turn down what you call "federal money," they have to raise taxes on their already overburdened citizens to make up the difference. It's not as if, were NCLB to wither on the vine because states don't participate, the federal government would see that as a reason to lower taxes. They would just spend the money some other way.

Would it not make more sense to get the federal government out of education (not to mention a lot of other extra-constitutional areas that traditionally belonged to the states), reduce federal taxes, and let the money remain in the states to be used there without the unnecessary layers of federal bureaucracy taking a big share of the money before it ever gets to the people it's intended to serve?

Which gets back to why I use strong language like "blackmail" or, after you took exception to that, "coercion," to describe these federal practices. If it is not the intent of the federal government to "coerce" the states, then why do they make the money conditional on obeying federal mandates?