Where Does The Constitution Grant Authority To The Government To Regulate Education?

[TheBDB]

I believe the Commerce clause in Article 1 Section 8 has been successfully argued before the Supreme Court as justification for government regulation of education.

Nobody likes my answer....

 

[spidey07]

Nobody likes my answer....

Because that clause has been used and abused to increase government way beyond it's original intent and only because of a few outlandish precedent setting cases.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, you're wrong and Linfas is correct. The teacher's unions are complaining about having to implement NCLB requirements when the federal government is not specifically paying for the requirements to be implemented. However, the federal government is still providing funding to these schools, and is conditioning that funding on compliance with NCLB and any other applicable federal regulations. Accordingly, compliance is technically optional. They have the choice to not comply and then not receive federal funds. It's just like with Medicaid. There are certain federal requirements for how a Medicaid program must be run, and federal contributions are contingent on compliance with those requirements. However, a state may opt out of Medicaid and have no state program at all, or create their own state program that does not comply, and receive no federal funds. The federal government isn't forcing the regulations on anyone; they are holding out a wad of cash as incentive, and saying, take the cash and the regulations, or eschew both the cash and the regulations. Your choice. That's why it isn't a Constitutional issue.

- wolf

The people in the state have to pay into the program even if they "opt out" of it. FUBAR.

 

[Linflas]

Nobody likes my answer....

The only SCOTUS decision I could find that remotely involved the commerce clause and education is US V Lopez and the SCOTUS used that case to restrict the reach of the commerce clause.

 

[woolfe9999]

The people in the state have to pay into the program even if they "opt out" of it. FUBAR.

True, but that doesn't make it a Constitutional issue. It's a political issue that you can take up with your local representative or senator. If you want your state to comply and take the money, take it up with your states reps. If you want the feds to not offer the money or retract the regulations, take it up with your U.S. Congressman.

- wolf

 

[TheBDB]

Because that clause has been used and abused to increase government way beyond it's original intent and only because of a few outlandish precedent setting cases.

I agree that it has been interpreted way beyond its original meaning. I was just trying to answer the question, and I think that has been a justification for government education.

 

[Linflas]

The people in the state have to pay into the program even if they "opt out" of it. FUBAR.

That is because the states allowed this by ratifying the 16th Amendment which clearly states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." They thought at the time that this was a way to get back at the rich industrialists in the North East and would never affect the "average citizen".

 

[NesuD]

The constitution doesn't grant the federal government any authority over the state concerning education. The federal checkbook however buys them all kinds of control over education most states.

 

[bfdd]

Kind of off topic, but since it was brought up in this thread I'll comment on it. The whole "federal funds" thing is a ton of fucking bullshit. A goddamn flaw that allowed the big federal government politicians were able to latch on to because of the stupid fucking federal income tax. The states would have far more power to rule themselves if they were the ones collecting the majority of our tax dollars and funding it back into the feds. That's how it should be done if we're to pay any sort of income tax.

 

[tk149]

The only SCOTUS decision I could find that remotely involved the commerce clause and education is US V Lopez and the SCOTUS used that case to restrict the reach of the commerce clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

This case killed the Constitution as it was meant to be. It basically gave Congress and the President carte blanche to pass any legislation they wanted, even if the power was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Other SC cases since then have confirmed this. Lopez was significant because it put a (very minor) restriction on the Commerce Clause. With the current court's makeup, don't expect Lopez to be quoted anytime soon.

 

[shira]

You're ignorant, but you'll assume that it's the government's job to prevent someone else from becoming ignorant. Imagine that.

I don't know but I assume it's the part Thomas Jefferson wrote to try to prevent places like Alabama from being third world hellholes that include "voodoo" in school curriculums.

Throckmorton's post wasn't in the least ignorant. Which just demonstrates your own abysmal ignorance. Bet you enunciate with a Dogpatch twang.

It will come as a surprise to you that the federal government is warranted to intrude in state matters when state officials are violating Constitutional principles. For example, much as you might believe that the state of Kansas and its school boards have the authority to inculcate its students with the love of Christ, the federal government can body-slam Kansas for engaging in such shenanigans.

 

[werepossum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

This case killed the Constitution as it was meant to be. It basically gave Congress and the President carte blanche to pass any legislation they wanted, even if the power was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Other SC cases since then have confirmed this. Lopez was significant because it put a (very minor) restriction on the Commerce Clause. With the current court's makeup, don't expect Lopez to be quoted anytime soon.

Agree totally.

 

[piasabird]

It is more like No Immigrant Left Behind!

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

What outrage? I'm just stating a lot of these states get back more from the Feds than they pay out to them.

You mean the opposite is true?

 

[Linflas]

Throckmorton's post wasn't in the least ignorant. Which just demonstrates your own abysmal ignorance. Bet you enunciate with a Dogpatch twang.

It will come as a surprise to you that the federal government is warranted to intrude in state matters when state officials are violating Constitutional principles. For example, much as you might believe that the state of Kansas and its school boards have the authority to inculcate its students with the love of Christ, the federal government can body-slam Kansas for engaging in such shenanigans.

When someone posts (bolding added):

I don't know but I assume it's the part Thomas Jefferson wrote to try to prevent places like Alabama from being third world hellholes that include "voodoo" in school curriculums.

A generous view is that ignorance is the root cause. As I pointed out in an earlier post Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the US Constitution, he wasn't even a signer on the final document. He was out of the country in Paris, France at the time the Constitution was written and signed.

 

[ebaycj]

What doest he department of education accomplish aside from returning pennies on the dollar in the form of a political favor to fund education?

I want 100% (or close to it) of my dollar to go to education and the only way to ensure this is to tax at a local level and have it go directly to the district/school.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html

What We Do

The mission of the Department of Education is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. It engages in four major types of activities:

1. Establishes policies related to federal education funding, administers distribution of funds and monitors their use.
2. Collects data and oversees research on America's schools.
3. Identifies major issues in education and focuses national attention on them.
4. Enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds.

 

[CycloWizard]

True, but that doesn't make it a Constitutional issue. It's a political issue that you can take up with your local representative or senator. If you want your state to comply and take the money, take it up with your states reps. If you want the feds to not offer the money or retract the regulations, take it up with your U.S. Congressman.

- wolf

I'm not arguing the Constitutionality of it. I'm simply stating that it's completely disingenuous to argue that states can simply opt out of these programs to stop the effects of federal meddling, as they will still be paying for them.

 

[CycloWizard]

Throckmorton's post wasn't in the least ignorant. Which just demonstrates your own abysmal ignorance. Bet you enunciate with a Dogpatch twang.

Yes, nothing ignorant about denigrating an entire state and nothing ignorant about arguing that Jefferson wanted a strong federal government.

It will come as a surprise to you that the federal government is warranted to intrude in state matters when state officials are violating Constitutional principles. For example, much as you might believe that the state of Kansas and its school boards have the authority to inculcate its students with the love of Christ, the federal government can body-slam Kansas for engaging in such shenanigans.

It did not come as a surprise to me that you would stoop to assigning me positions which you (should) know I don't support because I know you are incapable of stringing three rational thoughts together: such strawmen are your domain as you can't make any argument which addresses the topic at hand.

 

[tk149]

Agree totally.

Just so you know, this is not just my opinion. This was taught in my law school Constitutional Law class, supported by my professor (who once clerked for a Supreme Court Justice) and was in the Constitutional Law textbook.

 

[piasabird]

Even though I am a conservative, it is obvious to me that one thing we drastically need in the USA are standards in education so every state has the same standards for testing and evaluationg education. Even inside my own state of Illinois, in the local high schools I see such variance of requirements that one high school requires 18 credits while another high school requires 25 credits. Also some high schools are cutting corners. Without every high school in the nation using the same standards, there is no real way to compare the results. One high school will require only one year of Math and others may require 3 or 4 years of math. So their grades are invalid becomes the standards in some high schools are just too low. Some high schools are combining math classes like Geometry and algebra, and then when they get to college they do not have a year of geometry and have to repeat that Geometry in college.

I see valid reasons for education starndards to be consistent accross all grade schools and high schools. It gets even more important when it comes to colleges. It is painful to see people who went to some technical school or other post secondary (College) school find out they just wasted 2 years of their life attending a school that is not accredited. It is even worse when these non-accredited institutions are allowed to flood the media with their advertising. So we also need some enforced truth in advertising when it comes to Educational Institutions. This gives little credence to believing something because you heard it on TV. I think media should be required to maintain some ethical standards in this area as well.

 

[Patranus]

Delete

 

[Carmen813]

If we want to compete in a global economy we are going to need some sort of baseline national education standards. That said, I don't think NCLB was the proper way to go about it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Even though I am a conservative, it is obvious to me that one thing we drastically need in the USA are standards in education so every state has the same standards for testing and evaluationg education. Even inside my own state of Illinois, in the local high schools I see such variance of requirements that one high school requires 18 credits while another high school requires 25 credits. Also some high schools are cutting corners. Without every high school in the nation using the same standards, there is no real way to compare the results. One high school will require only one year of Math and others may require 3 or 4 years of math. So their grades are invalid becomes the standards in some high schools are just too low. Some high schools are combining math classes like Geometry and algebra, and then when they get to college they do not have a year of geometry and have to repeat that Geometry in college.

I see valid reasons for education starndards to be consistent accross all grade schools and high schools. It gets even more important when it comes to colleges. It is painful to see people who went to some technical school or other post secondary (College) school find out they just wasted 2 years of their life attending a school that is not accredited. It is even worse when these non-accredited institutions are allowed to flood the media with their advertising. So we also need some enforced truth in advertising when it comes to Educational Institutions. This gives little credence to believing something because you heard it on TV. I think media should be required to maintain some ethical standards in this area as well.

What is the purpose of these standards? Is it to enable colleges to have confidence during the admissions process? Is it to ensure that no one can call themselves a high school graduate if they don't know x, y, and z?

These standards are useless except in ensuring that no one is recognized for achievement because they will always ensure recognition for the greatest number and, therefore, the lowest level of achievement. Government functions on the basis of numbers: the more kids you pass through, the more money you get. Setting the bar arbitrarily low makes members of government feel better about themselves and allows maximum cash output. If you were paying for your kid's education out of pocket and he could only meet the government standards when you graduated, I would imagine you would be furious.

 

[CycloWizard]

If we want to compete in a global economy we are going to need some sort of baseline national education standards. That said, I don't think NCLB was the proper way to go about it.

Setting the bar so low that everyone can step over it doesn't accomplish anything. Setting the bar higher will return poor numbers, both in the number of kids "succeeding" and the number of kids dropping out. While this reality check would be great, it wouldn't be popular, so it will never happen.

 

[Patranus]

If we want to compete in a global economy we are going to need some sort of baseline national education standards. That said, I don't think NCLB was the proper way to go about it.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Now why do you think that a particular set of standards with "allow American to compete"?
Compete with what?

The fact of the matter is that this attitude is the same thing as Obama's push for a "green" economy. No one wants it, no one asked for it but the federal government "thinks" it is the right way to go. Instead of letting the market dictate what forms of energy America will use (see nuclear) the federal government thinks it knows best.

It is amazing how American managed to become a super power without such standards.