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