It's better if you can afford it.Quote:
I believe its private institutions to this day that provide the best education or do you think state education is better?
Printable View
It's better if you can afford it.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
For instance one parent households could be a cause. Etc. Etc.
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.Quote:
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.
I could make a good case for the federal government causing that also.Quote:
For instance one parent households could be a cause. Etc. Etc.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
When one asks if public education is constitutional - one must answer Yes if they believe in the intent of the document.
True on all counts. Add in poverty as well. Poverty is a detriment to education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Now whos talking out their butthole? ~D Quite a generalization dont you think?Quote:
I'll add that fundamentalist churches are downright hostile toward education and science in my experience in them
In reality its the effect of liberalism upon both our government and society. Thankfully in the US people are starting to recognize the danger.
Hardly a generalization, I spent a decade in these kind of churches. So my knowledge is first hand and in several states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
...uhhh...yeahhh...rigghhhttt... Look out for they guy with the butterfly net. :laugh4:Quote:
In reality its the effect of liberalism upon both our government and society. Thankfully in the US people are starting to recognize the danger.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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?Quote:
Hardly a generalization, I spent a decade in these kind of churches. So my knowledge is first hand and in several states.
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?
Better yet look at the last few elections.Quote:
...uhhh...yeahhh...rigghhhttt... Look out for they guy with the butterfly net.
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.
Well it should be.Quote:
Whether the federal, state or local government funds university education is not my concern.
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.Quote:
That any youth that is academically acceptable receives a 4 year university education regardless of ability to pay is.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Nixon was elected too.Quote:
Better yet look at the last few elections.
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.
LOL - you should be disappointed with yourself. You asked if its constitutional - and frankly it is. You asked the wrong question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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?Quote:
LOL - you should be disappointed with yourself. You asked if its constitutional - and frankly it is. .
It is not a fact, but a fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Or again are you trying to say that education does not benefit the General Welfare of the people?
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
LINKQuote:
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.
.
Gawain, [edited.] Everything you are saying is subjective, elitist, and, quite frankly, detrimental to the American people. This thread needs to be closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Yes your right its me.Quote:
Gawain, now you're just being an asshole.
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.Quote:
Everything you are saying is subjective, elitist, and, quite frankly, detrimental to the American people
Yes its so offensive. Well at least it wasnt until you arrived upon the scene.Quote:
This thread needs to be closed.
Again we might not want them involved - but that does not make their involvement unconstitutionalQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Have you ever heard of HUD section 8?Quote:
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.
Quote:
Have you ever heard of HUD section 8?
Yes another example of unconstitutional BS.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by on Ben Franklin from article quoted