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

[JEDIYoda]

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.

What I fing incredulous is how you think you were elected spokesperson for people who you believe do not one something....

You say no one this and no one that.......where are the no ones that you are spokesperson for.....

 

[aldamon]

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.

That's nice and all, but how about some standards for the quality of students themselves? Kids that don't show up for 50 days a year, or kids that are worrying about their next meal not math, or kids with English as a second language, or kids that have transferred from a crappier school mid-year, or kids with homebred behavior problems, etc., etc., etc. are weighing down the average for most struggling schools. NCLB basically tells schools to take their real-world problems and go to hell. Then politicians point fingers when the schools fail.

 

[piasabird]

How does a public school fall under the commerce clause?

You might be better suited looking at sections that govern free trade and specifically Child Labor laws.

CATO wants to do away with the department of education:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-28.pdf

Nine Reasons to Abolish the Department of Education
1. The Constitution provides no authority whatsoever for the federal
government to be involved in education. Eliminating the department
on those grounds would help to reestablish the original understanding
of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

2. No matter how brilliantly designed a federal government program
may be, it creates a uniformity among states that is harmful to
creativity and improvement. Getting the federal government out
of the picture would allow states and local governments to create
better ways of addressing education issues and problems.

3. If education were left at the local level, parents would become
more involved in reform efforts. Differences in school effectiveness
among states and communities would be noted, and other
regions would copy the more effective programs and policies.

4. The contest between Congress and state legislatures to demonstrate
who cares more about education would be over, allowing members
of Congress to focus on areas and problems for which they have
legitimate responsibility.

5. Since most information about the problems and challenges of
education is present at the local level, Congress simply does not
have the ability to improve learning in school classrooms thousands
of miles away. These problems are best understood and
addressed by local authorities and parents.

6. The inevitable pattern of bureaucracy is to grow bigger and bigger.
The Department of Education should be eliminated now, before
it evolves into an even larger entity consuming more and more
resources that could be better spent by parents themselves.

7. The $47.6 billion spent each year by the Department of Education
could be much better spent if it were simply returned to the
American people in the form of a tax cut. Parents themselves
could then decide how best to spend that money.

8. The Department of Education has a record of waste and abuse.
For example, the department reported losing track of $450 million
during three consecutive General Accounting Office audits.

9. The Department of Education is an expensive failure that has
added paperwork and bureaucracy but little value to the nation’s
classrooms.

I think the main problems with education is all local problems. Usually when a school system is failing, it is a local issue. You cant force children to have good parents.

I also dislike the no child left behind policy. It puts a lot of pressure on local school systems that are forced to accept illegal immigrants and count them in their normal domestic results. If just a few illegal immigrants move into an education district it can bring down the test results. This has nothing to do with the quality of education. It only proves that people that dont speak english well dont do well in the American education system.

Most large cities have problems with their gigantic socialist education systems. The federal government has done nothing to remedy this problem, except to spend more money to accomplish nothing. They were bad under local and federal rule. Basically the main thing the federal intervention does is it weeds out people in school systems that are there solely to steal money from an already corrupt, bloated education system. Sometimes smaller is better. Spending more money doesnt necessarily make people smarter. Mathematics, English, and spelling, has not changed much in 100 years.

 

[Perknose]

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?

No, Red means exactly what he said.

The overwhelming majority of the manly, conservative "States Rights", small government states turn out to be welfare queens, sluriping like so many greedy little piglets on the federal welfare teat.

At least piglets aren't flaming, fucking hypocrites about it.

These states couldn't balance their current budgets without the welfare they disproportionately suck from the stronger, wealthier Blue states.

You didn't know this?

"There's a general perception out there that the blue states are big net recipients of federal subsidies," says Harvard business professor Herman "Dutch" Leonard. And there's a corollary perception that, in contrast to these welfare-queen states, the inland and Southern states are a heartland of self-reliance and private initiative, less dependent on federal spending. As Leonard says, "That historically hasn't been the case." And it's becoming less and less so.

In 2003, the top subsidy-sucking state, in percentage terms, was red-lite New Mexico, which received $1.99 in federal money for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. All the next eight net recipients of federal spending were redder yet: Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi and Alaska, which received $1.60 to $1.89 back for each tax dollar.

The list of net losers in the state-federal exchange, by contrast, reads like a Who's Who of Blue. Two of the top 14 were traditionally red Western states that are starting to turn purple, Colorado and Nevada. The other 12 are all blue: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Wisconsin and the biggest chump of all, New Jersey, where the federal government spends just $.57 for every dollar it collects. Clearly Tony Soprano did not negotiate this deal.

Only five blue states were net recipients of federal subsidies. Only two red states were net payers of federal taxes. Washington, despite its large military presence and big defense contractor The Boeing Co., received just 90 cents on its federal tax dollar. Oregon and swinging Florida are perfect washes: They received one federal dollar for every dollar they paid in taxes.

 

[Linflas]

No, Red means exactly what he said.

The overwhelming majority of the manly, conservative "States Rights", small government states turn out to be welfare queens, sluriping like so many greedy little piglets on the federal welfare teat.

At least piglets aren't flaming, fucking hypocrites about it.

These states couldn't balance their current budgets without the welfare they disproportionately suck from the stronger, wealthier Blue states.

You didn't know this?

How about you get back to me when you can tell me just how much of that $1.60-$1.89 Virginia gets back is a result of money paid by the Feds to offset the large number of residents living here through the military or Federal appointments and maintaining a home state elsewhere thereby not paying state and local taxes while using state services and schools? Those numbers are meaningless unless they are broken down to reflect what amount of the Federal money goes to supporting Federal and military installations in each state.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, Red means exactly what he said.

The overwhelming majority of the manly, conservative "States Rights", small government states turn out to be welfare queens, sluriping like so many greedy little piglets on the federal welfare teat.

At least piglets aren't flaming, fucking hypocrites about it.

These states couldn't balance their current budgets without the welfare they disproportionately suck from the stronger, wealthier Blue states.

You didn't know this?

I was talking about crap like this post when I replied to Red's post earlier. You blame the Red States for taking what the Blue States voted to force on them. Sleep in the bed you made. Better yet, quit taking my money and giving it to people who don't want it.

 

[JSt0rm]

I was talking about crap like this post when I replied to Red's post earlier. You blame the Red States for taking what the Blue States voted to force on them. Sleep in the bed you made. Better yet, quit taking my money and giving it to people who don't want it.

Well I would ask why cant the red states make enough money to pay enough taxes to actually contribute to the nation? Seems like something about being down there has retarded their ability to think, act and function.

 

[Acanthus]

NCLB is just awful and should be repealed in full.

There are better solutions to problems with the dept of education.

I disagree, however, that this should be done entirely on the state/local level. If that were the case low income states like MI and LA will never become strong economic engines.

 

[Acanthus]

Well I would ask why cant the red states make enough money to pay enough taxes to actually contribute to the nation? Seems like something about being down there has retarded their ability to think, act and function.

Some of the traditionally red states do contribute to the national tax coffers (in that they export more federal taxes than they import federal funding). Texas is a good example. However all of its neighbors...

 

[shira]

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

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.

There you have it, folks. PsychoWizard reads a paraphrase of one of his own posts and accuses the paraphraser of erecting a straw man.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[CycloWizard]

There you have it, folks. PsychoWizard reads a paraphrase of one of his own posts and accuses the paraphraser of erecting a straw man.

You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, because in my post, I talked about teaching creative design in Kansas. Oh, and what about Jefferson being in favor of a strong central government? Did the facts finally weigh on you? Maybe if you came out of your parents' basement a bit more often, you wouldn't feel such a need to troll online and could become a productive member of society. Until then, you can join the other illustrious members on my ignore list.

 

[Throckmorton]

Some of the traditionally red states do contribute to the national tax coffers (in that they export more federal taxes than they import federal funding). Texas is a good example. However all of its neighbors...

Texas is the ONLY red state that pays more to the federal government than it gets back

 

[CycloWizard]

Texas is the ONLY red state that pays more to the federal government than it gets back

Then stop voting to give your money to the red states who can't fend for themselves. No, the leftists need to feel superior, need to feel needed. This is obvious from the collective statements in this thread.