Are Public Schools Constitutional?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL?


Lynn M. Stuter
January 20, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

As the war over education reform -- Goals 2000, school-to-work, and "outcome-based education" -- rages on, the time is more than ripe to ask ourselves, "Are public schools constitutional?"
Looking at the United States Constitution, no provision is made for education, but the Constitution does instruct that ... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) In other words, education is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why, then, do we have a cabinet level United States Department of Education (US DOE)? Does this not violate the U.S. Constitution? In a word, "yes." The US DOE was established under the Carter Administration as a political payoff to the teacher unions for their support of Jimmy Carter for president.

Inquiry of the US DOE recently, concerning the constitutional authority on which it was established, brought an interesting response. No doubt many will be surprised to learn that the US DOE was established to help and support states in the area of education; and, therefore, doesn't require a constitutional mandate.

No doubt those reading federal legislation and laws, replete with "must" and "shall" as condition of receipt of federal tax dollars, would dispute the contention that the US DOE is there merely to help and support states in the matter of education. No doubt a competent constitutional attorney could make the case that federal laws concerning education have, in fact, served to move control of education from the state level to the federal level in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

So, if the Tenth Amendment reserves education to the state level, are public or government schools constitutional at the state level?

Article IX, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Washington, states, "The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools..." This appears to conform with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ... that is, until we look further.

Article IX fulfills the requirements laid down by Section 4 of the Enabling Act (25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676), approved February 22, 1889, providing the would-be states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Washington the ability to "form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States ..."

Section 4 of the Enabling Act reads, in part, "... said [constitutional] conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States: ... Fourth. That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of said States, and free from sectarian control."

The requirement that Washington State have a "general and uniform system of public schools" was mandated from the federal level when the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves to the states that which is not specifically delegated to the United States? Why was this not challenged by the several states whose statehood was addressed by this Enabling Act? That challenge would have, no doubt, led back to Horace Mann and laws concerning compulsory education.

But the scope of conflict doesn't stop there. Note, under the Enabling Act, that public schools, by federal mandate, must be "free from sectarian control." Likewise, Article IX, Section 4, of the Washington State Constitution, to fulfill the requirements of the Enabling Act, states, "All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence."

Looking in the dictionary, we learn that "sectarian" is a derivation of "sect" meaning a group with a particular interest, purpose, or scope. Any religion has a "particular interest, purpose, or scope", does it not, whether it be Christianity, New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism ... or any one of the hundreds of religious sects on earth?

According to the Enabling Act and the Washington State Constitution, not one cent of public money may go to a school that is sectarian. None. Which brings us to another problem.

Every aspect of education, from the subjects taught, to the purpose of it, to the way it is taught (pedagogy), is based on a world view ... how one perceives the world and the purpose of it ... one's religious beliefs, one's religion, one's sectarian views.

For example, humanists (Darwinists) believe in evolution while Christians believe in creationism. Is evolution being taught in the public schools? Yes, it is and has been for many years. Is the religion of humanism being taught in the public schools? Humanism is the religious basis of education in the public schools of today. Does that violate the Washington State Constitution? Yes, it does.

But the Washington State Constitution requires the state have a "general and uniform system of public schools." How can that be done if every school is sectarian by virtue of its educational purpose? The answer, of course, is that it cannot be done.

How do we resolve this conflict of schools versus religion? Can education exist that doesn't have a basis in religion, that can be said to be secular? In a word, "No." Which, then, has priority, education or religion? It becomes apparent that religion (one's world view), as the basis of the education of the child, must take priority. This has been true since the beginning of time. Those who would say that schools today are without sectarian influence or control attempt to deny the religion of humanism that is the basis of education today.

Too, we need to look to the history of the United States for guidance in this matter. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." While many claim this establishes a "wall of separation" between church and state, such is not the case. Our Founding Fathers had first-hand experience with the religious intolerance of the Church of England. They were adamant that their newly formed government would never have the authority to establish a state religion, recognize a state religion, or have the power to persecute anyone or any religious group because of religious beliefs. The First Amendment is pivotal to the heritage and freedom of every American.

Following in the footsteps of the First Amendment, many, if not all, states have made provision for freedom of religion in their state constitutions, something on the order of "absolute freedom of conscience in matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual ..." (Article I, Section 11, Washington State Constitution) This fulfills the requirement of Section 4, First part of the Enabling Act: "That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship."

When the concept of the local school came into being, controlled by local parents, not beholden to state or federal laws or regulations, Christianity was the world view upon which the curriculum was based. As a purely local matter, this did not violate the constitution of either the state or United States.

But when states began to assert control over schools and school districts, collect and apportion tax monies to schools, the question posed by this conflict should have arisen. It didn't. In 1962, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional in public schools, and public schools embraced the religion of humanism as the basis of their curricula, the question posed by this conflict should have again arisen. It didn't.

Are public schools constitutional? Based on freedom of religion, I do not believe they are. In those states have constitutional mandates concerning freedom of religion and schools, the conflict between the two needs to be addressed.

© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved



Ive said this myself quite a few times. Instead of outlawing religion in schools just keep the damn feds out of something thats not their bussiness.

[Red Harvest]

What they want of course are little religious schools, so we could be just like the Saudi's etc. No, thanks. I've seen enough of how the Religious right loathes education and science (from within the churches.)

EDIT: The same religious right types who oppose science and want to manipulate education to give it a religious slant cry foul when you call a spade a spade. My experience with individuals in churches is that the ones who most feared education were the most ignorant (as in least educated.) They are dangerous to education, the welfare of the country, and democracy as a whole. Why anyone would want to follow that course is beyond me.

[Lemur]

Are public schools constitutional? Yes. Thank you, thank you, you've been a wonderful audience.

[Adrian II]

For example, humanists (Darwinists) believe in evolution while Christians believe in creationism.Do we have to go over this nonsense again? :dozey:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are public schools constitutional? Yes. Thank you, thank you, you've been a wonderful audience.

Not accordding to the areticle. Very good argument you have put forth.


What they want of course are little religious schools, so we could be just like the Saudi's etc. No, thanks. I've seen enough of how the Religious right loathes education and science (from within the churches.) Dangerous idiots they are.

Oh you mean like it was for the first 175 years of our history. Yup it was just like Saudi Araibia

[lars573]

Yet another rant about stuff that has no place in the modern world brought to you by Gawain "mouth piece of the religious right" of Orkeny. What you need is a DOE at all 3 levels of government. The federal government subseizing university cost and setting national scholastic ahcievement standards. Local governements building and maintinaing schools and running the community colledges and maintaining the teaching staff. Municipal governments run the bussing and where new schools are built if needed, they also maintain the matanence staff.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hmm.. let's see. When have the most important advances in science come along? What's that? After the first 175 years of our history? Oh, my...

Yet you would also deny that to many secularists and scientists science is their religion. What has science got to do with the constitution?


Yet another rant about stuff that has no place in the modern world

Your right the constitution has no place in the modern world. ~:confused:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Calling science is a religion is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

I told you that you would deny it. ~D

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

If state education is unconstitutional, you need to re-think your constituition.

[Steppe Merc]

This is just silly. Who cares if it's constitutional, public schools are important, are needed, and have to continue to exist. End of discuss, IMHO.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If state education is unconstitutional, you need to re-think your constituition.
State education is perfectly constitutional. Federal education however is not. You need to re read the constitution.

[lars573]

Your right the constitution has no place in the modern world. ~:confused:
Well since it isn't my constitution why not get rid of it.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

State education is perfectly constitutional. Federal education however is not. You need to re read the constitution.

I think we got our wires crossed there. State schools in this country are what you call public schools, I believe.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well since it isn't my constitution why not get rid of it.

Well since this thread obviously has no effect on you why dont you just butt out. ~D

[Lemur]

http://www.magickort.dk/images/Albino%20Troll.JPG

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You trolling again Lemurmania?

[Red Harvest]

Oh you mean like it was for the first 175 years of our history. Yup it was just like Saudi Araibia
It certainly made it easier to kill off the native americans and enslave blacks. I've read many a statement from religious types of the time claiming how they were doing the heathens such a great service in saving their souls. Religious education had of course become a far smaller component by the early 1900's, (but I don't want to mess with your alternate universe too much.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It certainly made it easier to kill off the native americans and enslave blacks.

Yeah if they didnt believe in god they wouldnt have wanted the indians land. Being christain also led to them wanting to enslve people. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound. It was christains who started the fight for the emancipation of slaves.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

State education is perfectly constitutional. Federal education however is not. You need to re read the constitution.
Gawain:

I suspect that he didn't spend much time with it because he's Welsh (assumption). I would, however, be happier if most of my fellow citizens had read that document.

You do recognize, of course, that fully applying the 10th ammendment with anything resembling an "originalist" interpretation, would necessitate the dissolution of about half of the federal government?

All:

In a strict "originalist" reading of the Constitution, it is evident that Congress and the Federal government in general were granted no authority to establish, regulate, fund or otherwise affect education. The conceit is, as noted in the piece above, that the DOE is only "supporting" the efforts of the various states. The piece present some sound points on how this is, in practice, not the case.

However, where it has been noted that any public school should be non-sectarian, I think the intent was sound. If you decide to have government mandated education, it should be established in such a fashion that no one is prevented from accessing it.

I would actually prefer to see all of it privatized and its mandatory status rescinded. If you choose ignorance, that should be within your rights. People without children to educate should not have to pay for the burden of providing education to others.


Final Point: Any student can learn in almost any education setting. The key to education is not so much the school and teachers as it is a family/parents that demands effort and work from the student in question. Anybody who wanted to learn in one of my classes at university did so and were able to retain and apply valuable insights generated in class, those who didn't care to learn simply received grades and went on to the next "block" to be checked off while retaining little. If you seek knowledge you will find it; if you do not care to learn, nothing can force you to discard your ignorance.

Seamus

[Redleg]

Public Schools in the United States are indeed within the guidelines of the Constitution. All one has to do is read the Preamble of the Constitution to understand that its within the purview of the Federal Government to establish education standards - which means they must provide the money to the educational system for the schools to meet those standards.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America




The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;





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.

And since most public schools are given a portion of their budget from the Federal Government to meet the Federal Requirments - its perfectly within the constitution for the government to have certain expectations of standards from the public school system.

Look closely at the public education requirements - you will find that they must meet more State requirements then Federal Requirments and those Federal Requirments are designed for the most part to insure the general welfare of the people - and most of the money that pays for the public education comes from the property taxes paid to the county - which is then alloted by established tax commission standards.

All three teirs of government are involved in the public education system - where the federal involvment is relative minor based upon national education standards - the state is more involved in public education then the Federal Government.

Really a non-issue from my prespective.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

.You do recognize, of course, that fully applying the 10th ammendment with anything resembling an "originalist" interpretation, would necessitate the dissolution of about half of the federal government?


We can only pray ~D Im serious Id like to see half the federal goverment gone.


Public Schools in the United States are indeed within the guidelines of the Constitution. All one has to do is read the Preamble of the Constitution to understand that its within the purview of the Federal Government to establish education standards - which means they must provide the money to the educational system for the schools to meet those standards.

Thats quite a stretch. How is it it took them almost 200 years to do so?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Public Schools in the United States are indeed within the guidelines of the Constitution. All one has to do is read the Preamble of the Constitution to understand that its within the purview of the Federal Government to establish education standards - which means they must provide the money to the educational system for the schools to meet those standards.

An originalist would note two things regarding your reference to the preamble:

1) it is the preamble and declares intent, the rights and powers are enumerated in the articles and ammendments.

2) "promoting the general welfare" and "establishing justice" may, possibly, be grounds for mandating standards (if you discount pt #1), but nothing in "promoting" requires that it be funded. Government at all levels mandates behaviors or their absence as well as making requirements of citizens and organizations without paying for them. In fact, an "unfunded mandate" while not exercising control via the purse would probably adhere more closely to the spirit of the COnstitutions definition of the federal role.

Seamus

[Reverend Joe]

They're not constitutional? Fine. Then we have to amend the constitution.

Gawain, by eliminating federal guidelines requiring public schools, you fundamentally weaken the public school system. This allows private schools to grow much stronger. Now, frankly, I don't give a goddamn what is taught in those schools- the problem is when they become the standard, which I can clearly see you want to happen. The problem with this is that private schools can restrict who has access to their education. They also charge money, so that even if they don't make it official policy, they can block the poor from getting an education.

To make a long story short: this is another attempt from the rightwing elite to keep the poor stupid so that they can control them more easily.

I know that this is a meanspirited post- but I just had to vent. Sorry.

[edited- this post crossed the line.]

[Redleg]

Thats quite a stretch. How is it it took them almost 200 years to do so?

Not a stretch at all - what do you think Promote the general Welfare means?

It does not mean promote a welfare state where the governments gives hand outs to the un-fortunate. It means something else. Then all one has to do is look at the clauses in the constitution.

And by the way it did not take almost 200 years. Public Schools have been in existance for a while. Most paid for by the state tax system - with some involvement from the Federal Government.

It seems my Grandmother went to a public school in the 1920's, and even my Great-Grandmother from the stories I have been told.

[Don Corleone]

I think you could make a very strong argument that the equal protection clause requires the government to provide any citizen with the capacity for absorbing it a University level education. Too much of our role in society is dictated by how much education we receive. Making education strictly private will turn this country into an aristocracy. By placing it at the state level only, the government is engaging in unfunded mandates.

[Reverend Joe]

Wait... I'm in agreement with Il Capo?! WHAT THE HELL?!

[Don Corleone]

Don't get used to it. It's one of the few areas I believe in taking a larger governmental role, essentially because in today's society, an education is a requirement to being a full citizen. Now, if you cannot pass the entrance exams but want to pay your own way, then by all means, you should be allowed to do so. Most plans I've seen that talk about governmantally funded university level education programs don't allow for this.

[Ronin]

Ive said this myself quite a few times. Instead of outlawing religion in schools just keep the damn feds out of something thats not their bussiness.


education is none of the government´s business?....that´s rich.... :dizzy2:

[Redleg]

An originalist would note two things regarding your reference to the preamble:

1) it is the preamble and declares intent, the rights and powers are enumerated in the articles and ammendments.

Your right - and I believe in following the wording of the constitution and the intent of the document - the preamble provides the intent of what the constitution means. The intent of public education is to promote the general welfare of the nation.



2) "promoting the general welfare" and "establishing justice" may, possibly, be grounds for mandating standards (if you discount pt #1), but nothing in "promoting" requires that it be funded. Government at all levels mandates behaviors or their absence as well as making requirements of citizens and organizations without paying for them. In fact, an "unfunded mandate" while not exercising control via the purse would probably adhere more closely to the spirit of the COnstitutions definition of the federal role.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 would allow congress to mandate and then establish a way to fund public education, especially if one follows the intent of the constitution.

Congress can mandate the standards without funding if it so wishes - or it can mandate the standards and provide the funding - or it can do absolutely nothing for public education.

The founding fathers left it up the the succeeding generations to decide for themselves through the democratic process that they established what the general welfare could entail. If your saying education was not important to the founding fathers - then you would be sadly mistaken. Education has been an issue debated in Congress numerous times over the course of our history.


When one asks if public education is constitutional - one must answer Yes if they believe in the intent of the document.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

education is none of the government´s business?....that´s rich....

The federal government. It was left up to the stes until the 1960s and if you check the figures the US was much better off the old way. We were ranked in the top 3 in the wolrd consitantly back then. Now were lucky to make the top 20. As usual the goverment does a poor job of such things. I believe its private institutions to this day that provide the best education or do you think state education is better?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I believe its private institutions to this day that provide the best education or do you think state education is better?

It's better if you can afford it.

[Redleg]

The federal government. It was left up to the stes until the 1960s and if you check the figures the US was much better off the old way. We were ranked in the top 3 in the wolrd consitantly back then. Now were lucky to make the top 20. As usual the goverment does a poor job of such things. I believe its private institutions to this day that provide the best education or do you think state education is better?

The reason we are not tops has some to do with the Federal Government - but more to do with our society in general. Lots of parents just don't care about insuring their childern are educated.

Blaming the federal government for the fall in education level based upon federal involvment in the education process is not a fair arguement. SInce many factors outside of that contribute to that fall.

For instance one parent households could be a cause. Etc. Etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Blaming the federal government for the fall in education level based upon federal involvment in the education process is not a fair arguement. SInce many factors outside of that contribute to that fall.

Its just a coincidence that the start of the federal government running our school systems coincides directly with our loss of staus ? I thought you understood how local governments handle things better and bigger government equals bigger buracracy. I have no doubt this is exactly why we are slipping. Again if its not broke dont fix it. We did great before they took over.


For instance one parent households could be a cause. Etc. Etc.

I could make a good case for the federal government causing that also.

[Reverend Joe]

Its just a coincidence that the start of the federal government running our school systems coincides directly with our loss of staus ?

Yes. There are thousands of studies that find a correlation between two factors- but there is no evidence in those studies that one causes the other. That is the case here. Your example provides no more proof than the study that found that crime rates dropped when capital punishment is outlawed. It's just a meaningless correlation.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes. There are thousands of studies that find a correlation between two factors- but there is no evidence in those studies that one causes the other.

Well that certainly proves me wrong........NOT. This is my opinion and theres much to back it up. The point is that its unconstitutional. Redlegs argument sounds much like SCOTUSs desicion on emminent domain.

[Red Harvest]

Yeah if they didnt believe in god they wouldnt have wanted the indians land. Being christain also led to them wanting to enslve people. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound. It was christains who started the fight for the emancipation of slaves.
No, the one being ridiculous is you, living in some dreamland of reblogged history and Constitutional interpretation. Actually it was the Age of Enlightenment that got abolition rolling. It was slower to take root in the U.S. Religious elements in the North started moving on it during the 2nd Great Awakening...of course in the South religion was still a tool for maintaining the status quo with respect to slavery. Throughout history religion has been used as a tool to justify one group as being superior to the rest. Christianity is little different in that regard. As such it is best kept out of the political arena. Too many Old Testament style U.S. Christians had no problem with genocide or slavery.

The main problem I have with these views about promoting religion in government, is that they have proven so disastrous in other nations and throughout history. Those we now face in conflict overseas think much like you, but you are blind to it, because you only see that they are of a different faith.

[Redleg]

Well that certainly proves me wrong........NOT. This is my opinion and theres much to back it up. The point is that its unconstitutional. Redlegs argument sounds much like SCOTUSs desicion on emminent domain.

Emminent domain happens to fall into the general welfare category when it involves public roads, parks, hosiptals, schools and other such things that are for the public good.

The Supreme Court was incorrect in thier ruling as it regards property private, commerical, and for profit use by any corporation or group of investors. The arguement might sound like the Supreme Courts decision - but then again its not.

Public Education falls within the purview of the Federal Government because it promotes the General Welfare of the people.

You actually might want to read what I wrote - I do believe local governments can run the public education system better - in fact that is what most of them are doing.

However you seem to want to neglect or discount the Federal Goverments constitutional authority to become involved in the education system. You asked if its constitutional for the Federal Government to be involved in public education - and its constitutional. However you did not ask if its an apporiate use of Federal Resources to become involved in the education system?

Other then providing simple mandates about standardize testing to insure students are educated to a common level through out the nation - I don't want the Federal Government involved in the education system. However again that was not your question. It was one of constitutionality - and the Federal Government does have the ability to become involved in public education by the constitution.

[Red Harvest]

I believe its private institutions to this day that provide the best education or do you think state education is better?
Depends on the institution. I didn't have the money for private education (nor the access considering it was mostly rural), yet I didn't find myself handicapped versus those with private educations. In a number of areas private education is not all that practical anyway.

The insular nature of many opposed to public education seems to backfire for their children, at least those I have known.

Sure cherry picked private education can and should be better...but so would public education if cherry picking was allowed. It is when you get to university level, because you have entrance requirements. My public universtiy classmates and I didn't have any trouble interviewing against or competing with the private university folks in my field.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When one asks if public education is constitutional - one must answer Yes if they believe in the intent of the document.

If the founding fathers wanted that it would have been clearly stated in the constitution. The fact that they never set up any such thing speaks volumes. They thought the states were perfectly capable of educating their own people. Im not arguing against state mandated education only federal. If you thik their right on this the federal governemnt could take over any or all the powers of the state or states using your argument. The facts are the federal government has indeed overstepped the bounds of the constitution to the point of absurdity.

[Red Harvest]

The reason we are not tops has some to do with the Federal Government - but more to do with our society in general. Lots of parents just don't care about insuring their childern are educated.

Blaming the federal government for the fall in education level based upon federal involvment in the education process is not a fair arguement. SInce many factors outside of that contribute to that fall.

For instance one parent households could be a cause. Etc. Etc.

True on all counts. Add in poverty as well. Poverty is a detriment to education.

I'll add that fundamentalist churches are downright hostile toward education and science in my experience in them. I noticed my classmates in the same churches were not focused on their education, partly because of what their churches and parents were teaching/reinforcing. Fortunately, my parents were more independent. It is sad that otherwise intelligent kids were in effect being educationally handicapped by their churches.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'll add that fundamentalist churches are downright hostile toward education and science in my experience in them

Now whos talking out their butthole? ~D Quite a generalization dont you think?

In reality its the effect of liberalism upon both our government and society. Thankfully in the US people are starting to recognize the danger.

[Red Harvest]

Now whos talking out their butthole? ~D Quite a generalization dont you think?
Hardly a generalization, I spent a decade in these kind of churches. So my knowledge is first hand and in several states.


In reality its the effect of liberalism upon both our government and society. Thankfully in the US people are starting to recognize the danger.
...uhhh...yeahhh...rigghhhttt... Look out for they guy with the butterfly net. :laugh4:

[Redleg]

If the founding fathers wanted that it would have been clearly stated in the constitution. The fact that they never set up any such thing speaks volumes. They thought the states were perfectly capable of educating their own people. Im not arguing against state mandated education only federal. If you thik their right on this the federal governemnt could take over any or all the powers of the state or states using your argument. The facts are the federal government has indeed overstepped the bounds of the constitution to the point of absurdity.

Your question was about consitutionality - in regards to the constitution - Federal Government involvement in education is constitutional - is it the best course of action for the government - other then overwatch and establishing non-funded mandates in standards - the Federal government should not be involved - but the Government should establish an educational level standard for high school graduates.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hardly a generalization, I spent a decade in these kind of churches. So my knowledge is first hand and in several states.

So you stand by your statement that they dont want their children educated? Or did you mean they dont educate them the way you would like?
Are most of them against TV and cars and the like? I suppose they dont believe in weather reports either. Besides what has this to do with whether its constitutional or not?


...uhhh...yeahhh...rigghhhttt... Look out for they guy with the butterfly net.

Better yet look at the last few elections.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, Redleg, I'd take it one step further. I think at the very least, the government program on student loans should be expanded to cover anyone who can get themselves matriculated for a four year degree. I would argue that post graduate work is still of sufficient rareness that it is not a necesity in order to have the 'ability' to prosper in our society. A bachelor's, for the most part, is.

People need to recognize the days of earning a good living without a college degree are just about over. Skilled trade work will continue to be outsourced. There's going to come a time in the not so distant future when almost all manufacturing will be performed in South America or Asia. What are our youth going to do with themselves at that point?

We need to give them the capability to prosper, not necessarily prosperity itself. I'm not making the argument that government owes a decent living to every person, whether they've earned it or not. But a university education is rapidly becoming a requirement in order to achieve a living wage in this country. Just as at one time, public schools only covered up until the 8th grade, we need to reevaluate what is the minimum requirement necessary to get along in our society and provide the ability to our citizens.

Whether the federal, state or local government funds university education is not my concern. That any youth that is academically acceptable receives a 4 year university education regardless of ability to pay is. I suspsect that such a large financial undertaking cannot be taken at the state level. Some states would do fine, others would flounder.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Whether the federal, state or local government funds university education is not my concern.

Well it should be.


That any youth that is academically acceptable receives a 4 year university education regardless of ability to pay is.

In that case how about making education a mandatory 16 year thing. All thiss is off topic. The facts are that this is unconstitutional and that the staes should be running the education systems just as they did so well for all those years before the 60s. Im really dissapointed in many of you conservatives here I must say.

[Red Harvest]

So you stand by your statement that they dont want their children educated? Or did you mean they dont educate them the way you would like?
Are most of them against TV and cars and the like? I suppose they dont believe in weather reports either. Besides what has this to do with whether its constitutional or not?

I don't stand behind what I didn't say. :whip: They are hostile to education and science, it interferes with their religious views in some aspects, and they only want certain things being taught. Education is lower on their priority list.

Better yet look at the last few elections.
Nixon was elected too.

There is a lot more to the change in the electorate than you seem to appreciate. The changes have taken generations with key events like the Teddy Roosevelt split and Desegregation transforming the parties. With it, the Dixiecrat machine became largely GOP. (Gun control issues had the same sort of impact.) The current struggle is largely urban vs. rural/suburban. The pendulum has shifted before, and it will shift again. It is often a case of the arrogance of the party in power hanging itself with excesses. Your tone is an example of that.

[Redleg]

In that case how about making education a mandatory 16 year thing. All thiss is off topic. The facts are that this is unconstitutional and that the staes should be running the education systems just as they did so well for all those years before the 60s. Im really dissapointed in many of you conservatives here I must say.

LOL - you should be disappointed with yourself. You asked if its constitutional - and frankly it is. You asked the wrong question.

If you wanted me to agree with you, you should of asked if its an apporiate use of Federal Power and revenue to add futher controls and mandates into public education?

There I would of agreed with the premise that the less governmental involvement at the Federal Level the better. For instance the Department of Education should be dismantled - and it should be a cabinet office working for the President to establish through congress unfunded mandates about educational standards.

However you decided to ask if its constitutional - and in that it is.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

LOL - you should be disappointed with yourself. You asked if its constitutional - and frankly it is. .
Youve shown me nothing to back up this assertion. If they wanted the federa; government to have control of education once more they would have given the federal government that power. What part of those powers not given the federal government reside with the state dont you understand?

[Red Harvest]

The facts are that this is unconstitutional
It is not a fact, but a fiction.

[Don Corleone]

Well, with all due respect, Gawain, I'm a little disappointed myself. How can you have a well-functioning representational democracy when there's not a level playing field? Using your arguments, states aren't on the hook for education either. Technically, nobody is. All the state needs to do is strike any reference to education from it's constitution and put a clause in that "powers not enumerated to this state government are the domain of the local governments".

When the constitution was written, states were not in the education business. That didn't come about until the 1870s. Until then, education was handled by each municaplity as it saw fit, if they bothered to at all. As society has progressed, the need for a basic, secondary and now university education have progressed with it. If the government didn't involve itself with education, it would be a rather varied experience, depending on fortunes of birth. As education is directly tied to your ability to function within society as a citizen, as I said, this is right up there as an equal protection issue AFAIAC.

I'm not making the argument that the federal government can do a better job educating children then a local school board. I don't believe that. But a local school board cannot make certain that it's students have the same resources available that other students have. The federal government can. As educting students is in the best interests of our nation, it is a compelling interest that the federal government does and should have.

[Redleg]

Youve shown me nothing to back up this assertion. If they wanted the federa; government to have control of education once more they would have given the federal government that power. What part of those powers not given the federal government reside with the state dont you understand?

Oh I image I understand it as well or better then you. What part of the Preambe and Article 1 Section 8 clause 1 don't you understand?

Education falls under the General Welfare of the people. Its within the constitutional powers granted by the founding fathers to the government.

If you don't want to see it - then that is your read on the issue not necessarily the actual intent of the founding fathers. My read of the constitution and my studying of the constitution and the founding fathers indictate that the intent of the founding fathers in the statement of "the General Welfare" shows that education does indeed fall within the purview of the constitution.

Or again are you trying to say that education does not benefit the General Welfare of the people?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm not making the argument that the federal government can do a better job educating children then a local school board. I don't believe that. But a local school board cannot make certain that it's students have the same resources available that other students have. The federal government can. As educting students is in the best interests of our nation, it is a compelling interest that the federal government does and should have.
Again they managed to do so for almost 200 years and did a better job of it as well. There are many things that are in the interest of our nation but that doesnt mean we need the federal government to do them. I dont want the federal government indoctranting our kids.


Or again are you trying to say that education does not benefit the General Welfare of the people?

Wouldnt giving everyone homes and jobs be in the general welfare of the people? Is that the job of the federal government? These days it seems so.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

By the way I brought this up because its my contention that instead of removing god from education its the federal government that needs to be removed or this silly idea they noww have of seperation of church and state.
Heres what some of the founding fathers thought about education and religion


Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

.

LINK (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29)

[Reverend Joe]

Again they managed to do so for almost 200 years and did a better job of it as well. There are many things that are in the interest of our nation but that doesnt mean we need the federal government to do them. I dont want the federal government indoctranting our kids.

Gawain, [edited.] Everything you are saying is subjective, elitist, and, quite frankly, detrimental to the American people. This thread needs to be closed.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, now you're just being an asshole.

Yes your right its me.


Everything you are saying is subjective, elitist, and, quite frankly, detrimental to the American people

Hows is saying that education should be run by the state and not the federal government elitist? Everything here is subjective or there would be no need for these forums.


This thread needs to be closed.

Yes its so offensive. Well at least it wasnt until you arrived upon the scene.

[Redleg]

Again they managed to do so for almost 200 years and did a better job of it as well. There are many things that are in the interest of our nation but that doesnt mean we need the federal government to do them. I dont want the federal government indoctranting our kids.

Again we might not want them involved - but that does not make their involvement unconstitutional




Wouldnt giving everyone homes and jobs be in the general welfare of the people? Is that the job of the federal government? These days it seems so.

Have you ever heard of HUD section 8?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have you ever heard of HUD section 8?


Yes another example of unconstitutional BS.

[Reverend Joe]

Okay. I am really sorry about that. But frankly, a declaration that we need to dismantle public schools- and you are saying that, by saying that they are unconstitutional- IS elitist. Why? I already told you- if you clean out public schools, all you ahve left is private schools. Not everybody can afford a private school. Also, the education will be subject to private interests, many of which don't exactly have our children's best interests at heart. Private schools are a great way to keep the masses stupid, and indoctrinated into a dangerous agenda- namely, one that will probably be extremely rightwing and nixonic.

How is that not elitist?

[Redleg]

By the way I brought this up because its my contention that instead of removing god from education its the federal government that needs to be removed or this silly idea they noww have of seperation of church and state.
Heres what some of the founding fathers thought about education and religion



LINK (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29)

Nice link but it does not support the arguement that Federal government involvement in education is unconstitutional. In fact it shows that Ben Franklin was for one in favor of establish standards for education.




In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

[Redleg]

Yes another example of unconstitutional BS.

While its government mismanagement and letting the government get to large and in to much control - it also does not fall within the purview of being unconstitutional. Unconstitutional implies something besides the government having to much control in the daily lives of individuals. Especially since the constitutionality of the law that created HUD has never been challenged.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nice link but it does not support the arguement that Federal government involvement in education is unconstitutional. In fact it shows that Ben Franklin was for one in favor of establish standards for education.

And im all in favor of this. You notice he was talking about standardizng education standards for the state not the federal government.


But frankly, a declaration that we need to dismantle public schools- and you are saying that

No im not. I went to public school all my life. But when I went to school it was all run by New York State. You clearly misunderstand my position.

[Don Corleone]

But Gawain, states didn't run schools in 1830. By what right do states involve themselves in education? Can one not make the same arguments against state intervention that you are against federal intervention? Following your logic, shouldn't we have 3500 some odd autonomous school boards, provided the local community decided to form one? Wouldn't this result in 3500 different standards of education?

[BDC]

Go America! Stop public schools!

I'm sure China will love you for managing to remove one of their real competitors entirely on your own.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gawain:

Redleg's argument is worthy of a better counter than you have provided so far. I too, favor a more originalist reading of the Constitution, but Redleg's interpretation of I.8 is not wildly off base either.

In contrast, I view the lack of any coordinated effort to establish a federal role in education during the early days of the republic to be significant. Yes, Congress was empowered to provide for the general welfare, but efforts were made to regulate commerce, establish standard weights and measures, establish a postal service etc. -- all effforts in keeping with the definition of the word "welfare" as it was then used. Schooling was left in the hands of the communities and/or the several states. As Redleg and others have noted, the Founders were keenly aware of the value of education, and almost without exception were well educated by the standards of their day. This suggests that a federal role for education was not central to their intent, and further suggests, to me, that ammendments IX and X are accorded preference in this matter.

Meat':

Chill a bit. Gawain gets too happy if you keep feeding him red meat like that. ~;) He's being anti-federal control, not anti-education. If he was really aiming for ignorance in this life, he wouldn't be able to argue as he does. I'm the one who opposes government-mandated education. Let those who wish to remain ignorant do so, and waste less time getting to their destination in life. This would force parents to take an active part, or listen to the school say, "Sorry, but little Johnny is wasting our time -- he's out." Once anyone conceives for themselves of the desire to learn, they will have an opportunity to do so.

Seamus

[Ironside]

Go America! Stop public schools!

I'm sure China will love you for managing to remove one of their real competitors entirely on your own.

But you'll get back your former colony then ~;)


I'm the one who opposes government-mandated education. Let those who wish to remain ignorant do so, and waste less time getting to their destination in life. This would force parents to take an active part, or listen to the school say, "Sorry, but little Johnny is wasting our time -- he's out." Once anyone conceives for themselves of the desire to learn, they will have an opportunity to do so.

And the result would only be the collaps of the US...

[Redleg]

And im all in favor of this. You notice he was talking about standardizng education standards for the state not the federal government.

Actually he was talking about the colony - not a state. The arguement he used for the colony having the education standards is exactly the same reason why the Federal government should standardize education within the United States.



No im not. I went to public school all my life. But when I went to school it was all run by New York State. You clearly misunderstand my position.


I understand your positon - your against Federal involvement in the education system, because it gives the illusion of taking power from the states, it costs more money then is warranted, that it does not really improve the education system nor the level of education children are recieving, and probably a few that I left out.

Non of these things makes Federal Government involvement in education unconstitutional. It makes it a burdern on the tax payers, it might lead to a inefficiency in the education system, but its within the purview of the federal government.

Why does school vouchers enter the United States congressional discussions if education is not in the purview of Congress and the Federal Government?

How about the school lunch program?

How about the Fitness Programs?

How about almost any program in the school districts that get Federal Funding for textbooks.

What about the standardized Tests - to include the ACT and SAT.

[Xiahou]

Public Education falls within the purview of the Federal Government because it promotes the General Welfare of the people.What couldn't someone argue applies under that clause if they so wanted? I'd say not much, by your argument. By placing so much weight on this clause, you may as well erase the rest of the Constitution- few of the government limitations in it matter if overriding them can be linked to 'general welfare'.

I, as I often do, agree with Cato.

The U.S. Constitution does not give Congress authority to collect taxes for, fund, or operate schools. According to the Tenth Amendment, education should be entirely a state and local matter. Nonetheless, the federal government has steadily eroded state and local autonomy in this area over the past 50 years, so that it now takes an active role in almost every issue related to education. Federal guidelines regulate, among other things, student discipline, the content of sex education courses, and the gender of textbook authors. Most of the U.S. Department of Education's programs are not the legitimate affair of the federal government-no matter how brilliant or experienced they may be, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. cannot solve problems and improve learning in classrooms thousands of miles away.Not only is it unconstitutional, it's not sound policy. I'd be all for abolishing the federal DOE.


People need to recognize the days of earning a good living without a college degree are just about over. Skilled trade work will continue to be outsourced. There's going to come a time in the not so distant future when almost all manufacturing will be performed in South America or Asia. What are our youth going to do with themselves at that point?Doesn't it further point to the failure of public education, if people are required to undergo additional private schooling just to be gainfully employed?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thank you Xiahou. Finally another constitutionalist.


What couldn't someone argue applies under that clause if they so wanted? I'd say not much, by your argument. By placing so much weight on this clause, you may as well erase the rest of the Constitution- few of the government limitations in it matter if overriding them can be linked to 'general welfare'.

This is what Ive been driving at. They could say bigger government is better for us and take any powers they like that they could claim are in the public good. This has been going on for decades.


Not only is it unconstitutional, it's not sound policy. I'd be all for abolishing the federal DOE.

Lets not leave out the IRS here. The federal government has usurped so much power from the states that our government would be practically unrecognizable to the founding fathers. This was never their intention.

[Redleg]

What couldn't someone argue applies under that clause if they so wanted? I'd say not much, by your argument. By placing so much weight on this clause, you may as well erase the rest of the Constitution- few of the government limitations in it matter if overriding them can be linked to 'general welfare'.

Again don't read what you think your reading into my comments - read what it states. Not everything falls within the "General Welfare" provisions of the Constitution regardless of the attempt by some or even now you to use that provision to justify your arguement. Are parks mentioned in the constitution? Are lakes being damned by the Corps of Engineers mentioned in the consitution? Most things that are funded by the government fall within the purview of "General Welfare of the people." Are you trying to state that education is not within the scope of "General Welfare of the People" in your counter?

I don't believe in the welfare state of giving handouts to the poor because that does not ensure the general welfare of the people - however ensuring everyone has an equal access to education and can achieve the same level of education is within the concept of "general welfare." You might want to check into why 12 years of mandatory education was established throughout the land as a standard. But since you and Gaiwan don't want to read about why its not unconstitutional - its now time for you to understand why it is from many different sources.

http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html


Editorial Summary
This article explores the history of the United States' public education system, tracing its development from its roots in Puritan and Congregationalist religious schools in the 1600s and subsequently the availability of free elementary education thanks to the efforts of Common School reformers in the 1800s. It continues on to the dramatic changes of the 1900s, culminating in today's highly decentralized (but still very imperfect) system. It explores the impact that many figures of great importance in America's history have had on the education system, and discusses various social, legal and cultural factors that have all influenced public education. The article also touches on issues of racial and gender equality.


Early History
American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century.
The most preliminary form of public education was in existence in the 1600s in the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The overriding belief on educating the children was more due to religious reasons and was easy to implement, as the only groups in existence were the Puritans and the Congregationalists. However, the influx of people from many countries and belonging to different faiths led to a weakening of the concept. People refused to learn only in English and opposed the clergy imposing their religious views through public education. By the middle of the eighteenth century, private schooling had become the norm.

After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions by 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for education. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. It was still very difficult to translate the concept to practice because of the political upheavals, vast immigration, and economic transformations. Thus, even for many more decades, there were many private schools, and charitable and religious institutions dominating the scene.

The Beginning of the Public Education System
Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools. Their decision was supported by the 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead.
High Schools
The first publicly supported secondary school in the United States was the Boston Latin School, founded in 1635. Harvard was the first University in existence at that time. The attendance in secondary schools was very little because the curriculum was specialized and hard. The demand for skilled workers in the middle of the eighteenth century led Benjamin Franklin to start a new kind of secondary school. Thus, the American Academy was established in Philadelphia in 1751. American high schools eventually replaced Latin grammar schools. The rise in American high school attendance was one of the most striking developments in U.S. education during the 20th century. From 1900 to 1996 the percentage of teenagers who graduated from high school increased from about 6 percent to about 85 percent. As the 20th century progressed, most states enacted legislation extending compulsory education laws to the age of 16. It is essential to look at the history of public education along with the events shaping the country in the early years of the 20th century. The Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, wars with other countries, civil rights movement, student protests and the numerous political events within the country all had their effects on the education system too. In the 1920s and 30s, “progressive education” was the word of the day; the focus then shifted to intellectual discipline and curriculum development projects in the later decades.
During the 20th century participation in higher or postsecondary education in the United States increased tremendously. At the beginning of the century about 2 percent of Americans from the ages of 18 to 24 were enrolled in a college. Near the end of the century more than 60 percent of this age group, or over 14 million students, were enrolled in about 3500 four-year and two-year colleges.

The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided federal financial support to state universities. Many land-grant colleges and state universities were established through gifts of federal land to the states for the support of higher education. Financial support was extended to the universities and this in turn led to increased research. In addition, the numbers of students attending college increased dramatically after World War II ended in 1945.

Involvement at the Local and Federal Levels
Individual states—rather than the federal government—have primary authority over public education in the United States. Eventually, every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum. In general, however, local districts oversee the administration of schools, with the exception of licensing requirements and general rules concerning health and safety. Public schools have also relied heavily on local property taxes to meet the vast majority of school expenses. American schools have thus tended to reflect the educational values and financial capabilities of the communities in which they are located.
By the middle of the 20th century, most states took a more active regulatory role than in the past. States consolidated school districts into larger units with common procedures. In 1940 there were over 117,000 school districts in the United States, but by 1990 the number had decreased to just over 15,000. The states also became much more responsible for financing education. In 1940 local property taxes financed 68 percent of public school expenses, while the states contributed 30 percent. In 1990 local districts and states each contributed 47 percent to public school revenues. The federal government provided most of the remaining funds.

During the 1980s and 1990s, virtually all states have given unprecedented attention to their role in raising education standards. A federal report published in 1983 indicated very low academic achievement in public schools. This resulted in states taking up more responsibility and involvement. This report, A Nation at Risk, suggested that American students were outperformed on international academic tests by students from other industrial societies. Statistics also suggested that American test scores were declining over time. As a result, most states have implemented reform strategies that emphasize more frequent testing conducted by states, more effective state testing, and more state-mandated curriculum requirements.
The federal government's activities in the field of education have further centralized American schooling. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 helped create vocational programs in high schools, and the GI Bill of 1944 was the first important federal effort to provide financial aid for military veterans to attend college. In addition, federal civil rights laws require all schools and colleges to conform to national standards of educational equality.

The federal commitment to improve and finance public schools expanded enormously when Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In these two landmark statutes, Congress addressed for the first time such broad problems as expanding educational opportunity for poor children and improving instruction in pivotal but usually neglected subjects, such as science, mathematics, and foreign languages. Other federal acts that addressed educational issues in this period were the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1963, and the International Education Act of 1966.

Other Issues
In spite of the belief that public education should be available to every child irrespective of race, gender or economic status, this has not happened in reality. Discrimination in schools on the basis of race and gender has always persisted. Girls were not admitted in schools until many years after the establishment of schools, and even then, they were not taught the same subjects as boys. Since the 1950s, public policy toward education has addressed discrimination issues in education more than educational issues. The federal government has especially been concerned with issues of equality in school districts.
Racial Equality
The first blacks arrived as slaves in the colonies in 1619. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were 4.5 million blacks in this country. The earliest education given to them was by the missionaries to convert them to Christianity. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts established many schools. The southern states opposed the education of blacks because these states were still favoring slavery. In spite of individual efforts, the education of blacks remained very low until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The literacy rate that was around 5% in the 1860s rose to 40% in 1890 and by 1910 it was at 70%.
During the 1950s segregation by race in public and private schools was still common in the United States. The South had separate schools for African Americans and whites and this system had been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In the North no such laws existed, but racial segregation was still common in schools. Segregation usually resulted in inferior education for blacks. Average public expenditures for white schools exceeded expenditures for black schools. Teachers in white schools generally received higher pay than did teachers in black schools, and facilities in most white schools were far superior to facilities in most black schools.

In 1954 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Despite vigorous resistance for many years by many southern states, by 1980 the federal courts had largely succeeded in eliminating the system of legalized segregation in southern schools.

Even after the court rulings, it was difficult to eliminate discrimination in practice. Many whites and middle class blacks had moved out of central cities by the 1970s, leaving poor blacks and rising populations of Hispanic Americans to attend urban schools. Native Americans, who had already lost all their lands to whites, also face the additional burden of poverty, which keeps them away from schools.

Most federally mandated desegregation efforts have been aimed at increasing educational achievement among African American students. However, many educators cite continued inequality in educational opportunities for Hispanic American students.

Gender Equality
Women have been equally discriminated against in American schools. Even in coeducational schools, practically no encouragement was given to the girls. Prominent women educators who have contributed significantly include Catharine Esther Beecher, Emma Willard, Mary Lyon, Jane Addams, Susan Anthony, Mrs. Carl Schurz, and Mary McLeod. They established higher-level institutions for women and offered subjects that earlier educators deemed unnecessary for women. The first coeducational college was Oberlin College (founded in 1833), the first enduring all-women's college was Vassar College (1861), and the first graduate school for women was at Bryn Mawr College (1880).
The emergence of the women's rights movement during the 1960s was a boost against sexual discrimination. Title IX of the 1972 federal Education Amendments prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in educational institutions that received federal aid. Educators are of the opinion that even after all these measures, women do not get equal pay in jobs. Discrimination in professional jobs still exists.

Conclusions
The advancement in technology and learning methods has brought about a lot of change for the better in the public education. However, other social problems that affect the public schools today are violence, drugs, alcohol, smoking, and sex-related issues. The American public school has always been looked upon as a system that inculcates the ideals of equality and freedom in the individual. It has changed historically according to the upheavals in the society. But the pitiful standard of high school education today has left many educators wondering how to improve the system, so much so that in his first week of ascending the Presidency, Bush introduced his “No child left behind” education plan. It is eventually the role of the public that should influence public education, which is not much prevalent now.
Sources
[1] Public Education in the United States. Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2001. (http://encarta.msn.com/)
[2] Department of Education Website. (http://www.ed.gov/index.html)
[3] Butts, R.F. Public Education in the United States: From Revolution to Reform. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
[4] Johnson, J.A., Collins, H.W., Dupuis, V.L. and Johansen, J.H. Introduction to the Foundations of American Education, Sixth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1985.

Normally I just link - but this article I cut and pasted the whole thing for everyone to read. Before claiming the Federal Government involvement in public education is unconstitutional is ignoring the dis-service to society that many states did to the poor.




The Federal government has the ablity to mandate and yes even collect taxes for many things we would not like them to, all within what defines "general welfare." The question was - Are public schools constitutional? In every sense of the word, yes the federal governments desired role would be constitutional. From the Preamble to Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 to the Tenth Amendment. If your attempting to state that the Federal Governments involvement in education is unconstitutional - then your incorrect.

What you and Gaiwan need to understand is what your arguement really is - not that is unconstitutional - but that its not the correct course of action for the Federal Government to get to entrenched into the educational mechanics - that is the state and local authority responsibility.

The Federal Government needs to allow the state and local authority to establish and run the public education system, with the Federal Government only establishing what the Federal Mandate education standards are to insure that all students throughout the nation are educated to the same standard level. This is not an unconstitutional application of the Federal Government - and is indeed within the purview of the Federal Governmetn.




I, as I often do, agree with Cato.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it's not sound policy. I'd be all for abolishing the federal DOE.


Not sound policy does not equate to unconstitutional. SInce your wanting outside opinions - here are some interesting ones concerning the constitutionality of public education and the Federal Role into it.




Federal and State Education Power and Authority as They Apply to School Fees

The Tenth Amendment makes clear that federal control of education is indirect and secondary to the power exercised by the states. Areas of state concern and responsibility include creation, organization and reorganization of school districts, employment and dismissal of personnel, establishment of curriculum, teacher and school accreditation, and management of school physical plant and managerial functions. The role of the federal government centers around general welfare (taxing and expending, though the government can put "strings" on education-related expenditures), the commerce clause (national minimum wage, child labor laws) and protection of individual rights and freedoms. When state and federal statutes conflict, federal statutes take precedence over state statutes.

The state's authority is not a distributive one to be exercised by local government, but is a central power residing in the state. The state legislature has both the power and the responsibility to enact laws to govern education. The administrative structure of the state includes both local and state boards of education . State Boards are elected or appointed bodies which have the authority to to administer the school system of the state, as well as implement and administer statutes. The State Board of Education can't delegate discretionary responsibility, but can delegate ministerial responsibility (clear cut situations in which no exercise of judgment is permitted). Local school boards focus their efforts and administration energies on issues specific to their school districts, each of which is assigned a specific unit number by the state. Local school boards have two main areas of responsibility, those being discretionary and ministerial (clear cut situations in which no exercise of judgment is permitted) responsibility. Each school board makes decisions regarding the education programs, personnel and philosophical issues which shape their district's educational programs. Courts will not interfere with a school board's decisions and other exercises of discretion except when the board's action violates the law, abuses authority or involves contracting in areas which extend beyond the board's authority. School boards are not the sole arbiters (did I use that term correctly?) in all of the decisions that impact a school district. Educational tribunals (courts of law or administrative agencies) form an important source of law under which education operates. There is an implicit assumption of neutrality on the tribunals's behalf, which is also guaranteed through constitutional provision. Tribunal decisions are binding on the parties involved. In Illinois, a court of review cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative tribunal.

Given this background, how do federal and state education entities deal with the issue of fees? In our particular situation, it appears that as long as the state of Illinois does not assess tuition to its public K-12 students, the state can do whatever it wishes, provided those fees are assessed equitably. Individual school boards have the right to establish fee levels for various grade levels in the school district, as well as make special provisions (e.g. Harlem school district's providing free textbooks to all of its public school students based on the 1938 community voting decision) they deem appropriate. Because the subject of schools fees is not specifically addressed in either state or federal constitutions, their constitutionality will likely continue to be a topic of debate and litigation in the state of Illinois.
[/quote]

http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~dstone/eol469week24cases.html





LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

America's public policy debate on education remains consistently documented government legislation. The decision in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka on May 17, 1954 voided state laws and state constitutional provisions which permitted the segregation of children in public schools on the basis of racial background. Following the elimination of a dual education system by the Supreme Court's Chief Justice Earl Warren, a number of states created alternative private school systems subsidized by public funds, as mechanisms to avoid racial integration. In certain states, tuition vouchers were utilized to defray the cost of nonsectarian private schools.

The first bill introduced by Senate Republicans in the 105th Congress was the "Safe and Affordable Schools Act of 1997, S.1. Among its many objectives, the bill purported to allow educational reforms to be tailored to the specific needs of local communities and states. Sponsored by Senator Paul Coverdell (R-Ga), the congressional bill would provide $ 50 million in grants to fund choice programs for children attending unsafe schools, and provide funds to states to establish school choice programs. The Safe and Affordable Schools Act included a school voucher proposal that would utilize taxpayer money to fund religious schools. S.1 is a primary focus of the Christian Coalition, whose members touted the vouchers as "Hope and Opportunity Scholarships." The American Civil Liberties Union believe that the proposal is representative of the Coalition's goal of merging government and religion and the subsequent diversion of public funds to private and parochial schools. Furthermore, People for the American Way warn that the proposed voucher programs would harm public schools and its students and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Supporters of private education in Arizona claimed victory in the state Legislature when the Senate Education Committee voted 4 to 3 to support a bill which could form a school voucher program in the state. The 4-3 vote was cast according to party lines; the four Republican members voted in favor and the three Democrats opposed the bill. The Republicans on the committee based their decision on the principle of individual choice. The funds would go directly to students; thus the recipients and their parents could decide which school meets their best interest. Senate Bill 1302 proposes $10 million in appropriations from the state's general fund for the 1997-1998 fiscal year to be distributed in grants of $2665 to qualifying children for tuition at a public or private school of their choice. Senator Mary Hartley opposes the bill, claiming it violated the principle of the separation of church and state. She further pointed out that four other states have passed laws approving vouchers and the constitutionality of each bill was being contested in federal courts.

According to a published report by the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), a education advancement organization, the last presidential campaign thrusted the issue of tuition vouchers into the center of America's public policy debate on education. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole supported the use of vouchers for private school tuition. His plan would have diverted $ 12 billion in public tax money to private and religious schools over the next four years. Funding for the vouchers would have been bankrolled by cutting back on existing federal programs that aided public schools and students. Senator Dole's opponent, President Bill Clinton (D) remains opposed to the use of tuition vouchers for private schools.



http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/GSR716A_KUECHLER/Candice.htm

[Red Harvest]

Thank you Xiahou. Finally another constitutionalist.

And we all know that the Founding Fathers intended that only those who agree with Gawain be considered "constitutionalists."

[Adrian II]

Guys guys, can we paste the bombardment of cut & paste.. I mean cut out the paste...

What the heck. Just paste it out, will ya!?

http://matousmileys.free.fr/bave.gif

[Redleg]

Guys guys, can we paste the bombardment of cut & paste.. I mean cut out the paste...

What the heck. Just paste it out, will ya!?

http://matousmileys.free.fr/bave.gif

Sometimes its just needed to be done. ~D

[Xiahou]

Nice educational history Redleg, but I didn't see anything in there that supported the constitutionality of it. Your article 1 section 8 argument is flawed. The first clause does lay out the reasons for taxation, including 'general Welfare', but then clauses 2-17 go on to deliniate specific governmental powers. This brings to mind 2 points.

1. Obviously, nothing even close to education is anyhere in any of those clauses.

2. If those innocuous 2 words "general welfare" were intended to leave such ambiguous leeway, what was the need for all of the specificity in the following clauses? It would seem unecessary as virtually everyone of them would fall under the 'general welfare'.

Again, it doesn't add up. Your interpretation would leave the door open for anything from a socialist healthcare system to income redistribution. None of which seems to be in keeping with the 'minimalist' intentions of the drafters. Further, this would be superceded by the 10th Amendment as education is not listed as a power in the Constitution and therefore retained by the states.

[Papewaio]

Guys if you want to be internationaly competitive in the information age then I suggest you educate, educate and then educate your citizens.

Take a serious look at how much teaching infrastructure China and the rest of South East Asia are pumping out.

Consider it this way, it is a matter of national security that you have an educated citizenship... unless of course you want to be dominated not just in numbers & cheap labour but also the design of products, management and quality side of workforces... if that happens then the investment that pours into the USA will start pouring into other countries.

[Don Corleone]

Guys if you want to be internationaly competitive in the information age then I suggest you educate, educate and then educate your citizens.

Take a serious look at how much teaching infrastructure China and the rest of South East Asia are pumping out.

Consider it this way, it is a matter of national security that you have an educated citizenship... unless of course you want to be dominated not just in numbers & cheap labour but also the design of products, management and quality side of workforces... if that happens then the investment that pours into the USA will start pouring into other countries.

Here, here!

[Redleg]

Nice educational history Redleg, but I didn't see anything in there that supported the constitutionality of it.

Well you can lead a horse to water but you can not make them drink.



Your article 1 section 8 argument is flawed. The first clause does lay out the reasons for taxation, including 'general Welfare', but then clauses 2-17 go on to deliniate specific governmental powers. This brings to mind 2 points.

More on the subject of education and General Welfare

Have you researched that even the founding father's were conflicted on what the term 'General Welfare" was suppose to mean?

The clause does indeed allow for taxation and then read the other part of the clause - it also dicates a power to the government per Hamilton's view on the "General Welfare of the people" Clause in the constitution

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html



The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.


Now Madison had a major problem with the "General Welfare" Clause in the Consitution and even delivered a speech on the subject to Congress



"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of policy, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."

An interesting read on the founding father's intent on "General Welfare of the people"

http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/d%20welfare.htm

http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0887.shtml

Hamilton's views on the "General Welfare" clause and wording has been the overwelming view by the National Government since the founding fathers drafted the constitution.





1. Obviously, nothing even close to education is anyhere in any of those clauses.


Those clauses are what allows the government to function. It indicates what power the Federal Government has - and what is reserved for the State Governments. It also allows Congress by the legsilative powers bestowed to them by the Constitution to formulate new laws to insure the "General Welfare of the People." The constitution does not have to spell out education. The "General Welfare" Clause applies because education is for all the people - notice this happens to also follow the Hamilton view of the constitution.



2. If those innocuous 2 words "general welfare" were intended to leave such ambiguous leeway, what was the need for all of the specificity in the following clauses? It would seem unecessary as virtually everyone of them would fall under the 'general welfare'.


I would suggest that you don't fully understand what the founding fathers meant by "General Welfare of the People" then. See some of the above quotes and reference material - the founding fathers could not agree on the intent of the meaning of the clause - and its still argued today. However the Hamilton version of the clause has been the primary means of the Government for many years.



Again, it doesn't add up. Your interpretation would leave the door open for anything from a socialist healthcare system to income redistribution. None of which seems to be in keeping with the 'minimalist' intentions of the drafters. Further, this would be superceded by the 10th Amendment as education is not listed as a power in the Constitution and therefore retained by the states.

Yes indeed it does open the door for many things - which I image from my readings was the intent of a few of the founding fathers - while some had other intentions. Again the 10th Amendment does not prevent the Federal Govenment to make decisions which the Congress believes to be for the "General Welfare of the People". (Edit: I initially worded this sentence wrong)

The question asked - Are Public Schools COnstitutional? The answer is yes - regardless of what role we would like the federal government to play in education - and once again I have stated that a large role in education is not an approiate role for the Federal Government - but its also not against the constitution. To call something like Federal Government involvement in education unconstitutional you will would to show that a group of people are being favored over the whole. To ask if its an apporiate role for the government - will take us back to the discussion that has been going on in congress for many years. Its all in wether you want to follow the limited government philosophy of Madison and Jefferson - or the Hamilton version of government. However neither group would say that governmental involvement in education is unconstitutional. Since they did indeed discuss it often.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/belz/lcfl_01.htm

Even Thomas Jefferson recongized that maybe the Federal Government should be involved in education


Jefferson felt so strongly about education that he, as a strict constitutional constructionist, submitted to congress an amendment to the constitution to legalize federal support for education in his State of the Union Address, December 2, 1806. "Education is here placed among the articles of public care. . . " (Honeywell, 1964, p. 63).


Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. . . . An amendment to our constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people. (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 87)

http://earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html

Several other quotes by Jefferson on education

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6529/notebook/jefferson_quotes.html




And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.


I don't believe Thomas Jefferson would have a problem with the Federal Government insuring that the people are educated. Now he might get upset with the Hamilton viewpoint of government that the nation has taken in regards to "General Welfare."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Redleg:

If I.8(1) implicitly grants the government the right to mandate, fund and direct education, why did Jefferson feel the need to submit a constitutional ammendment to add it? That data clearly evidences Jefferson's views favoring federal involvement/support for education but implicitly undercuts the idea of its being Constitutionally valid as constituted.

Pappy, The Don, Others:

What characteristic of government leads you to support its taking a major role in education (Xiahou, I recognize that you have not done so)? I am consistently annoyed with the inefficiency of government in aiding education, even if it were constitutional. The USA has fallen from its own high education standards and levels of success and the major system changes which characterize the two different eras are: there were few/no teacher's unions, there was no department of education.

Nobody on this thread has argued against education (in fact Pappy, I agree with you that education is a critical tool in personal development and opportunity, 2nd only to, and readily combined with, hard work), and the level of "parsiflage" indicates that all of the combatants are, themselves, well schooled. I simply see no compelling advantages to federal government involvement.

Seamus

[Papewaio]

Australia Federal Government looks after Private Schools and Universities.

Australian State Government looks after State Schools.

The trend is to have a national level of education so things are likely to become Federalised.

One of the problems is grammar is no longer taught in state schools. The standards for teachers has dropped--- why? Because in the last 30 years or so the Teachers used to be on parity with backbencher MPs, they now earn about a third of a backbencher MP. Living in capitalist country there is a social stupidity that respect is proportional to paypacket. As a country we do not invest in getting the best teachers... So the Federal government is trying to step in and takeover.

It doesn't make sense for a country to have different levels of education.
In a democracy you need informed citizens. In competition with other nations you need quality not just quantity of workforce. An educated (I include trades such as sparkies and plumbers) workforce makes the nation better... even the people employing apprentices are complaining about the level of basic fundamental skills on display with todays school graduates.

So I think as education is a good point to teach skills and values (like hard work gets you an A and poor work ethic gets you an F) that we should focus on fundamentals and have national standards to make us internationally competitive.

====

When I was teaching English in Taiwan last year the kids would go to school from 7am to 5pm and then private school from 5 to 9pm Monday to Friday. On Saturdays they would do either a half or full day at school or private school. That was the typical student. If they were studious they would go to school on Sundays and during holidays.

We have to stop thinking that we are competing to get into uni with the locals. We are competing to get the technological edge with other nations.

[Xiahou]

I simply see no compelling advantages to federal government involvement.Agreed.

Back to "general Welfare" allowing for federally run education for a moment... After doing some reading, I think the groundwork for this was laid under -suprise, surpise- FDR. The expansion of the meaning, in practice, seemed to be denied by the SCOTUS in several cases- that is until the infamous "court packing" threat, after which, things like the Social Security Act(see Helvering v. Davis), and the Frazier-Lemke Act were rammed down the high court's throat. As I've said, under its apparent, current implementation- there's very little it wouldn't allow for. Not entirely unlike the current interpretation of the Commerce clause and how the federal government exploits it to meddle in the business of the states.... :no:

[Redleg]

Redleg:

If I.8(1) implicitly grants the government the right to mandate, fund and direct education, why did Jefferson feel the need to submit a constitutional ammendment to add it? That data clearly evidences Jefferson's views favoring federal involvement/support for education but implicitly undercuts the idea of its being Constitutionally valid as constituted.

Because Jefferson was a strict constitutional constructionist. Hamliton was not, Madison was closer to Jefferson's views but not as strict of a constructionist.

[Redleg]

Redleg:

I simply see no compelling advantages to federal government involvement.

Seamus


And I would agree with this statement from any - especially you, Gaiwain and Xiahou. There is no complelling advantage for detailed federal involvement in the education process. The only involvement the federal government should have in education is to insure equal opporunity of education throughout the country, and to standardize education level requirements for high school graduation.

However to claim public education is unconstitutional is not correct.

[Adrian II]

I don't believe Thomas Jefferson would have a problem with the Federal Government insuring that the people are educated. Now he might get upset with the Hamilton viewpoint of government that the nation has taken in regards to "General Welfare."Working my way through the cut & paste I think Redleg has the best historical perspective on the issues involving the FF. But what I do not understand is that the views of the FF are regarded as Mosaic law by many Americans. The characters, views, words and intentions of the men who wrote that Constitution are interesting in their own right; I would probably be the first Yurpean on this board to confirm that. Reading Madison, for me, ranks up there with reading Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Hobbes, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Freud or Aron.

What I do not understand is this tendency to regard the Constitution as set in stone, implying that any change in its interpretation would somehow have to be in line with the thoughts of the FF. The result of this is that the FF have been dehistoricised, anachronised and cut down to the size of marketing executives whose world consists entirely of slogans.

Jefferson was a Christian? Yes and no. He was a deist, as were all the other FF right down to Thomas Paine. Their works, private conversations, letters and table speeches make that very clear. But they were also politicians and diplomats, and they realised the world was not ready for their notion of a distant and possibly impersonal God. In the eyes of many ordinary people that would have amounted to Freemasonry, heresy, betrayal of the worst kind. So they put a brave face on it and adapted themselves to circumstance. In speeches to American church audiences they would emphasise that the new Republic was Christian; in treaties with North African rulers they would emphasise that the United States was not a Christian nation at all. Anyone who fails to recognise this dynamic, or fails to understand that FF were no robots and that they went through personal and philosophical changes during their lives (Tom Paine would be an excellent example because he wrote about it all the time) is just a fool in my eyes.

But what baffles me is the idea that the American political compact should somehow still conform to the notions of gentlemen who have been dead for 200 years. That seems somehow so rigid, so static, so ... un-American. ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Adrian:

Well written. I think you may have just summarized the basis for the intepretivist position vis-a-vis our Constitution better than most of the folks who take that view.

While I am more of an "originalist," I am not a strict "constitutionalist." Those latter view the document as an absolute legal contract spelling out the duties and powers of government and reserving ALL other power, rights or decisions to the several states and or the people as appropriate. For any change of any significance to be made, they view a fully prosecuted constitutional ammendment as a necessary requirement.

My views, though trending in that direction, do accept the idea that the Constitution was a framework and not a fully detailed blueprint covering all facets for all times. I therefore do not object to the existence of, for example, the State Department, even though it is only implicitly mentioned in reference to "executive departments." Some form of state secretariat was and is a necessary and reasonable component of government.

Where it becomes problematic, however, is when a representative of the judicial branch, reviewing some legal decision, promulgates some "right" or viewpoint as being within the scope of the Constitution without some clear textual reference or measured and reasonable inference thereon. For example:

The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was entirely understandable and correct, albeit dreadful (sorry, couldn't resist). Any reading of the original text of the Constitution shows that slavery was implicity, and even explicitly, accepted in that version. While I (and I hope they) consider slavery immoral on a basic level, the Constitution as then constituted clearly condoned it. It is our national tragedy that we could not achieve the necessary ammendment to the Constitution without killing ourselves in great big batches.

By contrast, the Court's recent decision regarding eminent domain is more jarring. Though the Constitution implicitly condones the concept of Eminent Domain (I don't believe it is explicitly mentioned) -- an extent power drawn from British common law and an accepted part of normal governance, the court condoned the use of eminent domain in cases of private development, as opposed to the traditional uses of public transportation, government buildings, and other facilities designed specifically for public use. Even the court's earlier support of private railroad's using eminent domain was questionable, but this decision effectively allows any government entity to confiscate any property for any purpose as long as it feels there will be some indirect public benefit -- including a higher tax base with which to fund more government! While this will be blocked legislatively in most states, the Court has taken their interpretation of the 5th ammendment quite far afield here.


Seamus

[Adrian II]

Adrian:

Well written. I think you may have just summarized the basis for the intepretivist position vis-a-vis our Constitution better than most of the folks who take that view.Thank you. I prefer to discuss matters in a calm, reasoned manner (muhahaha...) of the kind you have just displayed rather than 'debate' them with knives drawn and cut & pastes flying. I am aware of the American debate raging over Scalia's Constitutional 'originism' versus Ronald Dworkin's interpretivism; at least I try to follow what is being said and written. I think my own position would be very close to what John G. Roberts said in the hearing yesterday (which I quoted in another post just an hour ago). But my view is hardly relevant because I know too little about American jurisprudence.

What amazes me, though, is the frequent suggestion that what the FF intended for America is automatically good for America. No matter what interpretation people give to the Constitution and to the many and various words of the FF about it, once Americans have settled on a particular interpretation they defend it with their lives because the FF said so. It is as if the the real fight is not over the Constitution and what it should mean today, but over who owns the FF. I mean, if you happen to have views that are at odds with the FF, why wouldn't you say so instead of twisting and turning their words until they fit your bill?

You could just as easily say: Look, this is 2005, it is time for a new vision and a new interpretation of the Constitution - no matter what the FF might think about it if they lived. Wasn't it the great American Henry Ford who said ' History is bunk', meaning that the official history of past wars and statesmen and political doings is not relevant to us today?

[Kanamori]

I've been trying to revisit all of those Constitutional threads from times past; it's always fun to see how my opinion has evolved, and how. ~;) (How do I dig that stuff up anyways?)

For many, I don't think it is necessarily what the godly FF thought, as much as, what the law says, and the law shouldn't be changed except in the format lain down in the Constitution; this so often goes to what the FF meant, although, you will find Justices like Black who interpreted the law literally, especially in First Amendment cases he is a good read. That the Amendment process is difficult makes Constitutional law problematic to change without unelected Judges changing it, though.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Jefferson was a Christian? Yes and no. He was a deist, as were all the other FF right down to Thomas Paine. Their works, private conversations, letters and table speeches make that very clear


How this myth continues is beyond me. This is total BS. Do I have to start cuttting and pasting again to show you how wrong you are. They considered diesim as infedility and bad.


Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious."[7]
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."[8]
John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith."[9]
John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution." [10]
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation -- a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. In a letter to his daughter, Susan, Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:

I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain man's genius and art pointed at the youth of America. . . . This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate your mind. . . . I therefore determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions -- not knowing that "they are the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16]."[11]






In 1844, a case came before the U.S. Supreme Court [Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126 (1844)] in which a Frenchman, suspected of being a "deist" or "infidel," wanted to build a school quite different from most -- one in which the teachers would not be clergymen. His will left millions of dollars to the City of Philadelphia to build a school in which "no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever" should be allowed in. He stipulated that "only the purest principles of morality" should be taught, by which he obviously meant Secular Humanism/No Bible.
(I say this is "obvious" because of the opprobrium with which the atheistic French Revolution was viewed in America. Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs suspected that by this provision he wanted to exclude the Bible from the school and to prohibit Christianity from being taught.)

Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs conceded that an atheistic school such as this would be repugnant to the Christian law of this country. This is one of the arguments raised before the Supreme Court by Daniel Webster:

[T]he plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant to the law.

His reasoning before the US Supreme Court was based on Biblical authority:

Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance [viz., the religious instruction of youth] is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children," and in the New, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not . . . ." No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it.

One has to exercise a little historiographic wisdom here. What kind of world was it back then the a man of Daniel Webster's stature (called "the Defender of the Constitution") could rise before the US Supreme Court and cite Bible verses as the basis for setting aside probably the largest devise of its kind in the history of the New World?

Webster argued that the single anti-Christian provision of Girard's will should force the entire will to be set aside. But courts will attempt to salvage a will by removing any clause offensive to public policy. This is what the City of Philadelphia argued. They granted that the atheistic school clause was anti-Christian and therefore unlawful, but they argued that Webster should have

. . . joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause.

The City agreed with Webster that this was a Christian nation and that the Bible must be taught in schools. Giving a tortured interpretation of the Frenchman's will, the City argued:

The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -- the Bible. . . . [T]here is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz., a pure system of morality.

So here we have two parties before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that a clause in a will requiring a Bible-free school cannot be enforced in America because this is a Christian nation




After both sides argued that the anti-Christian provision of the will was repugnant to law, the unanimous opinion of the US Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Joseph Story, whose Commentaries on the Constitution were regarded as the greatest statement of U.S. Constitutional Law. The Court ruled that Christianity could NOT be excluded from the school.
Christianity . . . is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. . . . It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider . . . the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of . . . Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.

Note that "deism" is equated with "infidelity." The Supreme Court said they were not to be tolerated in a Christian nation. Deism is not approved the way modern writers say the Founders did.



I hope this also puts to rest the absurd claim that the US is not a christain country.


I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism and atheism prevail in the world.[21]
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The attempt by the rulers of a nation [France] to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy [an act of depravity] . . . . [T]o establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make it a gloomy desert of the universe.[22]
Alexander Hamilton

[T]he rising greatness of our country . . . is greatly tarnished by the general prevalence of deism which, with me, is but another name for vice and depravity. . . . I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and indeed that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory, because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics . . . . [B]eing a Christian . . . is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.[23]
Patrick Henry

[I] have a thorough contempt for all men . . . who appear to be the irreclaimable enemies of religion.[24]
Samuel Adams

[T]he most important of all lessons [from the Scripture] is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion.[25]
Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution

[S]hun, as a contagious pestilence . . . those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or [who are] enemies to the power of religion.[26] Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.[27]
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

John Adams also recognized that the Bible cannot be removed from schools, because freedom cannot exist in chaos. We cannot separate religion and government:

Religion and virtue are the only foundations . . . of republicanism and of all free governments.[28]




Diest my a$$

LINK (http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm)

[Redleg]

How this myth continues is beyond me. This is total BS. Do I have to start cuttting and pasting again to show you how wrong you are. They considered diesim as infedility and bad.


I hope this also puts to rest the absurd claim that the US is not a christain country.

Diest my a$$

LINK (http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm)
[/quote]

That is worthy of its own thread Gawain.

Were the founding fathers diests or were they christians. Would be an interesting discussion if the I hate religion crowd remains civil in the discussion. However I am afraid such a discussion will quickly become derailed by such behavior.

[Redleg]

Thank you. I prefer to discuss matters in a calm, reasoned manner (muhahaha...) of the kind you have just displayed rather than 'debate' them with knives drawn and cut & pastes flying. I am aware of the American debate raging over Scalia's Constitutional 'originism' versus Ronald Dworkin's interpretivism; at least I try to follow what is being said and written. I think my own position would be very close to what John G. Roberts said in the hearing yesterday (which I quoted in another post just an hour ago). But my view is hardly relevant because I know too little about American jurisprudence.

You did okay there Adrian logical approach and criticism without attacking the oppostion viewpoint.

The way I see it there were basically four philosophies in the founding fathers writing of the constitution and ever since the founding of the country its been a hotly debated subject. Sometimes leading to changes in how the country operates.

These are my definations based on readings - some will coincide with constitutional historians - however I am sure they are many who would disagree.

1. Strict constitutional constructionists - Jefferson is the best model of this in my opinion
2. Constitutionist - Gawain seems to fit the defination fairily for the modern constitutionist - Madison is the founding father most often associated with this philosophy.
3. Originalist - Seamus identifies himself as this type of follower of the constitutional philosophy - I am also more of an orignalist in my philosophy of the constitution - but the problem is that we really dont have any founding fathers that followed this philosophy - its a more modern approach.
THere are a few founding fathers that might fit this model - but for the most part you could of called them moderates in the founding and formulation of the government.

4. Federalists - Well Hamilton is propably the most well know of the founding fathers that followed this philosophy on government and the constitution. The funny thing is that many democrates in American government opinion follow this pattern more then anyone else. So do the republican as a political body.



What amazes me, though, is the frequent suggestion that what the FF intended for America is automatically good for America.

You should embrace the philosophy fully since you already agree with much of what the founding fathers of the United States intended. They wanted a central government that would fulfill the needs of the society. The constitution is loosely worded in many ways to allow this growth, and in other ways its speficially worded to prevent the government from eroding individual property rights and individual rights.



No matter what interpretation people give to the Constitution and to the many and various words of the FF about it, once Americans have settled on a particular interpretation they defend it with their lives because the FF said so. It is as if the the real fight is not over the Constitution and what it should mean today, but over who owns the FF. I mean, if you happen to have views that are at odds with the FF, why wouldn't you say so instead of twisting and turning their words until they fit your bill?

They took that in consideration in their writing of the document. Unfortunately some Americans do exactly what you stated.



You could just as easily say: Look, this is 2005, it is time for a new vision and a new interpretation of the Constitution - no matter what the FF might think about it if they lived. Wasn't it the great American Henry Ford who said ' History is bunk', meaning that the official history of past wars and statesmen and political doings is not relevant to us today?

The Constitution remains relative to the United States as its written because certain aspects are indeed able to be changed based upon the desires of the people. That is why constitutional arguements always come up in the United States.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. Strict constitutional constructionists - Jefferson is the best model of this in my opinion
2. Constitutionist - Gawain seems to fit the defination fairily for the modern constitutionist - Madison is the founding father most often associated with this philosophy.
3. Originalist - Seamus identifies himself as this type of follower of the constitutional philosophy - I am also more of an orignalist in my philosophy of the constitution - but the problem is that we really dont have any founding fathers that followed this philosophy - its a more modern approach.
THere are a few founding fathers that might fit this model - but for the most part you could of called them moderates in the founding and formulation of the government.
4. Federalists - Well Hamilton is propably the most well know of the founding fathers that followed this philosophy on government and the constitution. The funny thing is that many democrates in American government opinion follow this pattern more then anyone else. So do the republican as a political body.
Reasonable set of definitions here. As an originalist, I trend a bit more toward the constitutionist side than you, from what I have read, but these labels are reasonable. I suspect good old Ben would have been in our camp, at least for the most part.

It should also be noted that a number of our founders, notably Patrick Henry, actively opposed the Constitution in its then extent form, arguing that it was too restrictive of liberty and nothing but a springboard for the acquisition of power by the Central government. The Federalist papers were, to some extent, an ongoing persuasive effort to get people to support the new constitution. Opposition, while not in the majority, was significant. Rhode Island's legislature is reputed to have voted for the Constitution only under the implied threat of military violence from its neighboring states!


The Constitution remains relative to the United States as its written because certain aspects are indeed able to be changed based upon the desires of the people. That is why constitutional arguements always come up in the United States.

While I accept a limited scope of interpretation, I too would prefer any major changes to follow the process outlined for ammending the Constitution, but I agree with you that its continued relevance for the USA despite more than 2 centuries of worldwide change -- societal changes that many would argue eclipse the totality of change experienced in the preceding two millenia -- demonstrates its value and the craftsmanship of the framers.

That, of course, is the importance it carries to those of other nations. No other nation has a written constitution that has stood for so long and continued to be relevant, even though quite a number of the world's nations have a longer-lived -- if less written out -- system of government.

Seamus

[Redleg]

Reasonable set of definitions here. As an originalist, I trend a bit more toward the constitutionist side than you, from what I have read, but these labels are reasonable. I suspect good old Ben would have been in our camp, at least for the most part.

I tend to follow Ben Franklin's philosophy on government more then any of the other founding fathers - but I do have a slight lean toward Hamilton's version. However I am extremely glad that not all of Hamilton's ideas took hold.




It should also be noted that a number of our founders, notably Patrick Henry, actively opposed the Constitution in its then extent form, arguing that it was too restrictive of liberty and nothing but a springboard for the acquisition of power by the Central government. The Federalist papers were, to some extent, an ongoing persuasive effort to get people to support the new constitution. Opposition, while not in the majority, was significant. Rhode Island's legislature is reputed to have voted for the Constitution only under the implied threat of military violence from its neighboring states!


Yep I have heard that story about Rhode Island - however I have never seen any historical mention of it beyond a tell. I would be interested if anyone has any confirmed history about the threat of violence used in getting the Constittution ratified. I do know that several of the colonies were wanting more of a Confederation type of charter verus the Constitution.

Patrick Henry if my memory serves me correctly would of fallen into that camp. He would of made the anarchists of today proud since he was basically opposed to any form of power being given to a central government.



While I accept a limited scope of interpretation, I too would prefer any major changes to follow the process outlined for ammending the Constitution, but I agree with you that its continued relevance for the USA despite more than 2 centuries of worldwide change -- societal changes that many would argue eclipse the totality of change experienced in the preceding two millenia -- demonstrates its value and the craftsmanship of the framers.

That is the problem with the government today - and the blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of congress and the American people. Many have decided that the government's responsiblity is to take care of them - verus what the founding fathers true intent of government was, to insure that the government was held responsible by the people for its actions.



That, of course, is the importance it carries to those of other nations. No other nation has a written constitution that has stood for so long and continued to be relevant, even though quite a number of the world's nations have a longer-lived -- if less written out -- system of government.

Seamus


Yes indeed the Consitution is a worthy model for a governmental charter.