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

[teddie_grl]

You didn't answer my question. You said it was conceived in 1867. I asked, as a department of What? Because there was no such department in the federal cabinet in 1867.

Sorry you're wrong, it was the department, 'oh' N/A You want an answer fill out your profile and stop being one of the 'hidden' Jesus Christ, man up, I don't care if you live in Argentina, or Charlotte.

 

[Rightguide]

There was a minor bureau but it didn't establish or dictate education standards to the states. It was no way analogous to what we have today.

 

[KingOrfeo]

DoE:

The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[12] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[13]

Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.[14] Aligned with this mission of ensuring equal access to education, the Department of Education is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[15] and works with federal partners to ensure proper education for homeless and runaway youth in the United States.

Now, just what part of that is dispensable?

 

[Rightguide]

Sorry you're wrong, it was the department, 'oh' N/A You want an answer fill out your profile and stop being one of the 'hidden' Jesus Christ, man up, I don't care if you live in Argentina, or Charlotte.

...

 

[oggbashan]

You didn't answer my question. You said it was conceived in 1867. I asked, as a department of What? Because there was no such department in the federal cabinet in 1867.

The US Department of Education says so:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

History

The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.

Although there was a department it was downgraded and covered by an existing cabinet member in 1867:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

Establishment
A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but was soon demoted to an Office in 1868. As an agency not represented in the president's cabinet, it quickly became a relatively minor bureau in the Department of the Interior. In 1939, the bureau was transferred to the Federal Security Agency, where it was renamed the Office of Education. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to cabinet-level status as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Indeed he did, but the fact remains the the Dept was conceived in 1867, as a Department. A year or so later is was relegated to an office of education, and remained, an office until sometime in the thirties, when it was included into the HEW, if I recall. ( I could be wrong) Carter thought it was a good idea, to have education a separate concern. Not a bad idea, just a bad situation, where politicians , suck the life out of a good idea, and live on the proceeds of their donors. Oh and BTW I don't give a rats ass to either side, they are both there to have a 'job'

In 1867 there were 7 cabinet level offices, none had anything to do with education.

This.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And this is why we have a Dept of Ed. To give, those less educated dipsticks, that ask a question, when the answer is there.

We have a Cabinet-level Dept. of Education because Carter wanted enthusiastic Union support in his election bid. It is a political post having nothing to do with actual education.

At the end of the Civil War all education was local, sporadic and not mandated by [the Federal] government. Back then it was understood that education was not in the purview of the Federal Government.

 

[oggbashan]

We have a Cabinet-level Dept. of Education because Carter wanted enthusiastic Union support in his election bid. It is a political post having nothing to do with actual education.

At the end of the Civil War all education was local, sporadic and not mandated by [the Federal] government. Back then it was understood that education was not in the purview of the Federal Government.

Quote from my post #55 above:

"The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. "

That gave it no role in setting what the States did.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Quote from my post #55 above:

"The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. "

That gave it no role in setting what the States did.

It was the equivalent of what we now call "Blue-Ribbon Commissions."

Another example of how language "evolves."

 

[Conager]

Just wondering how many jobs are going to be impacted shutting down this department?

I would love for Maryland and Virginia to learn what a real estate recession feels like. Given that our last one was directly caused by politicians and expecially bureaucrats that were riding lending standards.

 

[sigh]

218 yeas in the House, 51 in the Senate, the President's sig = done deal.

At the very least, it'll further help cull the rINO herd on 11/6/18.

There is no greater good President Trump can lead this great nation back to than the natural law of subsidiarity (even if unconsciously).

Edumacation is a great place to start!

Oh goody. Another faith-based argument.

Subsidiarity is a "natural law"? Seems to me that anything that fits right wing ideology is a natural law. How convenient.

Actually, to a large degree I support subsidiarity. It's mostly your natural law bullshit that irks.

 

[irksomesauce]

Lincoln was America's first true Progressive president (capital "P" employed to emphasize the outrageously repugnant statism he so forcefully - UNCONSITUTIONALLY - employed).

After the CSA surrendered in 1865, that repugnant statism soon started sweeping over the entire nation - FORCEFULLY.

Lincoln is responsible for reversing the revolutionary American political principle of self-government into the totally statist one of omnipotent federal government American lives are virtually ruled over by in almost every conceivable way today.

H.R. 899 would be a great way to easily state, NO MORE.

But the best way to practically begin exorcising the anti-American, statist disease of progressivism is simply to constitutionally reject it by amending the 17th's total repeal - after that, everything else would start falling into self-government place fairly quickly.

Including this recent, fantastic EO excerpt...

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

...and proscribing that socialists/progressives are direct enemies - thus traitors - to the Constitution; that no socialist/progressive is permitted entry into this country, that all socialist/progressive immigrants are deported from this country, and that all socialists/progressive who are citizens in any way, shape, or form be stripped of their citizenship status on the constitutional grounds of their treason, and offered either exile in the country of their choice (who might accept them), a 10-year sentence to constitutional reeducation camp, or life internment.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Lincoln was America's first true Progressive president (capital "P" employed to emphasize the outrageously repugnant statism he so forcefully - UNCONSITUTIONALLY - employed).

Not much point in reading further, is there?

 

[Conager]

Oh goody. Another faith-based argument.

Subsidiarity is a "natural law"? Seems to me that anything that fits right wing ideology is a natural law. How convenient.

Actually, to a large degree I support subsidiarity. It's mostly your natural law bullshit that irks.

Human nature actually exists. It can be observed, tracked, even statistically analyzed.

A lot of ideas on the left depend on humans going against what is well-documented human nature. For example collectivism on its face sounds like a wonderful idea. Why not take advantage of economies of scale and eliminate redundancies? Everybody pulling the plow all together the same direction is surely going to be more efficient than a bunch of rag-tag fields going every which way requiring irrigation canals hither and yon.

Problem is human nature. It's even been tried in faith-based settings where everyone is pulling these equal yokes in the same direction all to the furtherance of God's kingdom. It still doesn't work then. The reason it doesn't work is because enlightened self-interest is a natural consequence of us being sentient beings. This is true whether God or nature made us this way.

If you earn the same rations whether you work hard or slack off, human beings slack off. I make much more money if I get up at 3 in the morning then I do if I get up at 6. On days when I don't know for a fact that I'm going to make money between 3 and 6, I find it really really really hard to get out of bed. and that's why it still exist as a possibility that I might make money it's hard to get out of bed when you know you might make money getting out of bed when you know you won't make any more money is nigh near impossible.

Human beings recognize when their brow has sweated, and they feel very much entitled to the fruits of that labor.

This is natural law and it doesn't have anything to do with God.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Human nature actually exists. It can be observed, tracked, even statistically analyzed.

Psychology is one thing, and "natural law" is another.

 

[teddie_grl]

We have a Cabinet-level Dept. of Education because Carter wanted enthusiastic Union support in his election bid. It is a political post having nothing to do with actual education.

At the end of the Civil War all education was local, sporadic and not mandated by [the Federal] government. Back then it was understood that education was not in the purview of the Federal Government.[/QUOTE

That being said, is why we still have people like you still crawling the halls.

 

[Conager]

I gather there must be a Facebook or Twitter meme making the rounds asserting the education department predates Carter's blatant appeasment of the NEA.

Whenever somebody smugly uses the word "research" that's always where it comes from.

They throw that in there, like they were just wandering the halls of the National Archives... pulled out a few relevant tomes, commentaries, and concordances. . .sat down with a legal pad and pencil. . .

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . Carter's blatant appeasment of the NEA.

 

[Conager]

Psychology is one thing, and "natural law" is another.

There's no law of the jungle? Predators will not pursue prey when the opportunity affords itself? Humans are different from other biological animals in what way, counselor? Did God magically make them not behave as mammals do?

There are not natural consequences that will inevitably occur when you ignore the realities of the physical world?

Psychology can certainly help you understand human nature, but psychology does not cause human nature. Human nature exist naturally, hence the word nature in the phrase human nature. Human Nature exists, independent of any analysis of that human nature.

Physics and biology all follow natural laws. Some laws we know, some laws we don't. Some laws, our understanding of them may change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that such laws exist.

Whether or not human beings happen to live in a society that recognizes their natural rights their natural rights exist. For example they have the right to exist. No one has the right to kill another human being capriciously.

Not every place on Earth recognizes property rights but that is a natural right of the human animal which is why humans we'll fight to preserve their property rights. A child knows when a toy belongs to him and when it is been taken from him and when an injustice has therefore occurred. Justice is a natural concept it isn't hard to understand. Primitives and children understand it. Lawyers like you do not.

Those on the left do not like the concept of natural law because they want the collective to have the right to simply decide amongst themselves what your rights are and what rights will be granted to you and when you can exercise them.

You cannot organize an involuntary collective without violating human rights. Human rights are naturally occurring they aren't necessarily naturally recognized in all places but we all know certain basic human rights that everyone has. The left has no trouble making up various human rights so I don't know why they have such trouble recognizing those that clearly exists independent of any government.

How is it that people who earnestly believe that people have the quote unquote right to a living wage the right to shelter the right to an education can't seem to grasp the concept that you have the right to the fruits of your own labor?

 

[KingOrfeo]

There's no law of the jungle?

Of course, but that's psychology. Not the same thing as natural law, which is a matter of ethics.

 

[irksomesauce]

Cause and effect is, of course, another natural law - one, in fact, socialists/progressives also have an almost impossible time of submitting to...

Even when the star of The Apprentice is elected president of their United Socialist State of America!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[KingOrfeo]

How is it that people who earnestly believe that people have the quote unquote right to a living wage the right to shelter the right to an education can't seem to grasp the concept that you have the right to the fruits of your own labor?

See, now you're making what amounts to a natural-law argument -- on a point of ethics, not psychology. That's the difference.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh goody. Another faith-based argument.

Subsidiarity is a "natural law"? Seems to me that anything that fits right wing ideology is a natural law. How convenient.

Actually, to a large degree I support subsidiarity. It's mostly your natural law bullshit that irks.

It seems to be a Catholic thing.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Subsidiarity is a "natural law"? Seems to me that anything that fits right wing ideology is a natural law. How convenient.

Actually, to a large degree I support subsidiarity. It's mostly your natural law bullshit that irks.

Subsidiarity is supposed to be one of the principles of the EU. It might be stated to be; it doesn't work in EU practice. What it should mean is that States can interpret things their own way, and even States within States.

Germany is a federation of states. So is Italy. But subsidiarity doesn't seem to work for them.

 

[KingOrfeo]

DoE:

The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[12] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[13]

Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.[14] Aligned with this mission of ensuring equal access to education, the Department of Education is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[15] and works with federal partners to ensure proper education for homeless and runaway youth in the United States.

Now, just what part of that is dispensable?