Third Party & Independents: Archives

You captured my thoughts exactly, Misha.

misha…

as for the dred scott reference:

it was odd of him to refer to such a case from so long ago…however, doing some research, as you undoubtedly know, “dred scott case” is what roe v. wade is often referred to as by pro-life folks….so in essence he was giving a nod to his base..saying he would seat a supreme court justice who would overturn roe v. wade.

it makes sense, and kept him from having to say it out loud and get all the dem’s upset….

but as i said…you probably already knew that theory….

I would love to believe that Rob, but lets look at what he actually said (get ready to cringe):
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1008.html):
“Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America. “

In fact, the constitution DID allow slavery- 3/5th clause, fugative slave clause. what Dred Scott said was that (1) a black person could never be a citizen; (2) slave property was protected in the terriroties. I guess Bush was kind of referring to (2), although he got the Constitution confused with the decleration of indepedence, leading to a pretty sad moment of confusing. I actually do think that Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade are very similar indeed- but if Bush really thinks that, he has a funny way of going about it. In the very least, it backs up my point that he is trying to move to the center for political purposes (I think Bush on abortion is very similar to Kerry on gay marriage- which of course makes me very frustrated because if Bush was honest about abortion, I think i woudl agree with him and if Kerry was honest about gay marriage I would agree with him.. oh well…)

There has never been a better time to decide to vote for Badnarik or Nader. The movement away from this centrist no issue but votes Republocrat Party can begin here and now.

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/16/new-national-polling-results/

New Badnarik Poll numbers, he’s starting to overtake Nader as the defacto 3rd party choice this election. It would be nice if things would start out with 3rd party choice, but it seems the media is complicit in supporting the 2-party system. Just search any major news site for badnarik and it’s a paltry 0-6 mentions. Even CNN could bother to mention the convention which took place in the same city as their HQ.

Even CNN couldn’t bother to mention the convention which took place in the same city as their HQ.

Also, check out this article on the media blackout, spooky.

Misha , I said you expressed my thoughts. You did, in that Bush and Kerry were playing to the center… with a wink or two at their base.

Your comparison of Dred Scott to Roe v. Wade however, just reveals your bias in the analysis of the constitutionality of decisions. I realize you would like to remove the checks and balances of the constitution to forward your right wing agenda. Thank goodness the constitution didn’t give you that power.

As to your statement that funding education is extraconstitutional, of course it is. It just isn’t dissallowed by the constitution. Most laws and policies aren’t layed out in the constitution. It’s a framework, not a detailed policy manual.

Greg, your statements to me show that you care more about results than fidelity to our constitution. To wit:

1. Almost all constitutional scholars, liberals and conservatives, agree that Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned and decided. At the very least, the constitution does not speak to whether unborn children have rights. Most arguments by current jurists to maintain roe v. wade are based on stare decisis, since most everyone recognizes that roe v. wade has nothing to do with the meaning or text of the constitution (See e.g. Casey). Moreover, you should not pretend like I want to get rid of the checks and balances just because you want to protect the judicially invented right to abortion. I support judicial decisions that protect constitutional liberties when there is a constitutional basis. In fact, I spent this last summer working on behalf of one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees so that his constitutional rights would be honored (kind of blows up your little caricature of me, doesn’t it?). I also would have supported the judiciary striking down campaign finance reform as a clear violation of the first amendment. You should be more careful when you go around making assumptions about people, because it says a lot more about your biases than the person about whom you make the assumptions.

2. The constitution is not a mandate for general powers- it is a list of certain enumerated powers that the federal government can accomplish. You may not like it, but that is how our constitution was set up. Now, obviously, the necessary and proper clause gives some wiggle room, but it does not give so much wiggle room as to allow Congress to do things unrelated to the enumerated powers.

If you care about our constitution, I suggest you pay more careful attention to it, rather than using it to fit your goals on abortion and education. Today, most people use the constitution as a malleable object to achieve whatever end they wish- rather than respecting it. Roe v. Wade is just the most clear example of this shameful practice.

In what was one of the most surprising (and infuriating) moments of the night, George W. Bush joined John Kerry in supporting increasing the minimum wage. It is staggering that candidates who talk about the problem of unemployment cannot see that increasing the minimum wage, if it has any effect at all, will lead to more unemployment.

I suppose this statement is part of your plan to level the playing field with China, by lowering American wages to ten cents an hour?

Yes- cause thats exactly what would happen! Today, most people even in the least-skilled jobs make more that minimum wage, so lowering it would have no effect on most people (as a person who has worked a bag boy, a cab call-taker, a dish washer, a security gaurd and a waiter- I can tell you from personal experience that the only time I ever made minimum wage was for 3 weeks when I was 14 years old and working at the supermarket before I got a raise). Anyway, more importantly, I believe in freedom of contract, as our constitution used to garantee because it was written out of the constitution by courts in the 1930s.

To link this back to my conversation with Greg- when something is protected by the constitution (freedom of contract or right to trial), I support the courts stepping in. When something is not protected by the constitution (killing unborn children), I do not want them to step in. thats the way checks and balances under a constitution are SUPPOSED to work.

(killing unborn children)

Where exactly does this mischaracterize your right wing stance?
Hate to break it to you, but everyone does not believe this article of faith you propose.
A fetus is not an unborn child, it is a fetus.

Even though you state Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the constitution, I would say the Justices disagreed with you. That is Constitutional. Frankly, I don’t want your religious fervor disguised as constutional concern invading my right to recieve medical care in private without your interference.

Almost all constitutional scholars, liberals and conservatives, agree that Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned and decided.

I’m glad you do believe in checks and balances, My statement was sarcastic.

I’m curious how you presume that the constitution limits the federal government from funding education.

Greg-

1. You have once again made assumptions about me which are based on nothing more than your prejudices. I have not religious in the least- i am agnostic. Please try to argue against my points rather than some image of a crazy religious, right wing fanatic you have made up in your head (see my original post where I support gay marriage, for example- I also believe in legalizing prostitution, drug use ect.)

2. Have you read Casey? It upholds Roe v. Wade basically on stare decisis grounds. The constitution does NOT mean what 5 justices of the court say at any given time- i reject that. I think it has a particular meaning, and judges can be right and wrong about that meaning. It is an open question as to the extent of legal protection unborn children should be granted- the constitution says nowhere that Congress and the people cannot protect unborn children’s lives. I dare you to find a provision in there that says that.

3. It is not that the constitution LIMITS the federal government in funding education- it is that nothing in the constitution grants Congress the power to fund education. If you look carefully at Art. I, Sec. 8, you will see a list of powers Congress has been enumerated. Nowhere in that list will you find either education or anything so closely related to education it is is necessary and proper to accomplishing one of the enumerated powers.

You see- there are TWO limits on the power of our federal governnment. On one hand, we have the limits on the bill of rights which say “Congress cant do X”; on the other hand, we have the actual text of the constitution (together with some amendments like the 14th), which say “Congress may only do A, B, C.” In order for an action to be constitution it must BOTH be in the list of A, B, C AND not be violative of X. Does that make sense how i explained it? Its rather uncontraversial, I think.

Since you like to enumerate:

1. I only stated that your premise that Abortion amounts to child killing is right wing religious fervor,not a constitutional issue, irregardless of your professed religion.

2. Roe v. Wade was about the 14th admentment. stare decisis simply states that a decision is upheld unless grounds are found to overturn. i.e.it’s still violates my 14th admendment rights.

3.Personally I think education IS for the general welfare, don’t you? Or do you prefer an electorate easily swayed by big words?

Does anyone here really know anyone that works for the $5.35 min wage we now have ?
With the exception of waitress(who also get tips) I can’t think of any except “special needs” persons that work in controled enviorments.
Raise the min wage to Kerrys proposed $7hr and you hurt the very people you wish to help.
I can remember when ever grocery store had one or two sacking grocerys and cleaning up.
Remember when someone pumped your gas? Many of those were unemployable at higher wages and now they are out of work.
Everytime you push wages higher it becomes more cost effective to replace workers with machines and tech.
Why do you think the new “pay at the pump” machines are there? Comming soon…No casher at the station/partystore, Now the retired person that worked a few hrs. a day not only loses the few extra bucks they were making, they lose the “daily personal contact” that many of them are there for!
Here an idea my compassionate friends, really stop and think about the effects of the mandates you call for, and if you get an extra hour or two, visit a retirement home, may of those there get no visiters and would love to just chat.

Thats my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Greg- do you seriously believe that argument? I mean, if the only thing the federal government must show is that it is acting in the general welfare, then what is the purpose of the enumerated powers?! Everything the government can is easily characterized as “in furtherence of the general”, can it not?

Beagle, first you say almost nobody actually makes minimum wage, then you say that it would hurt American business to raise it. Which is it?

-Cf

Christopher,

I don’t think I said it hurts business, I said it hurts the few workers at the low end of the scale that earn min wage.

Business’s will adjust, some of those workers have nothing else to adjust to !
If you don’t understand my post, I’ll try to expand on my point, however, I confess, I don’t understand yours.

Beagle: I guess I explained your position incorrectly.

I’ll simplify my question: I don’t understand why you so strongly oppose raising minimum wage if you think that almost nobody actually makes minimum wage.

It seems to me that a business that can’t make a profit because they pay people more than $7/hour is probably a pretty crappy business. If the only way your business can profit is by paying people less than what it takes for them to be economically happy and safe, then your business model is flawed. That’s how I see it.

-Cf

Misha, actually I do. I see the Constitution as a frame work. I do not see it as a restrictive document. Yes, the argument that limited government was the intent of the framers is valid, but we have learned a thing or two in the last 200 years.

If the federal government had not aided education and does not help to enforce equality in education, I believe our society would be poorly served. I am not concerned about the wealthy recieving an education, they can still opt for private education.

I do not believe the lie, that education is in a horrible state. Could it be improved? yes. Should local government be largely responsible for administering it? yes. If things were as they were 200 years ago a large part of the population would still be illiterate. We have literacy of 97 or 98 percent. Do we need more engineers? yes.

The forefathers used wood stoves and rode horses. If you wish to restrict your life to those standards, be my guest. I choose to recognize progress in the world, and live in reality rather than idealology.

Christopher,

“I’ll simplify my question: I don’t understand why you so strongly oppose raising minimum wage if you think that almost nobody actually makes minimum wage.”
My point is that the very few working for min wage would be hurt by raising it to the point that business’s would replace them with something else.

“It seems to me that a business that can’t make a profit because they pay people more than $7/hour is probably a pretty crappy business.”

It might be a “crappy” business,but It might be the only one those workers can get a job in.

To you/me it might be a “crappy” job, and I’m not saying that you should advocate that for a career choice for your son/daughter, I’m saying that if by mandating a wage, you might be pushing business to get rid of them.
How the hell does that help those workers?

Econ. 101, business’s exist to make a profit(evil word to libbys), without it they go into something else.

Its kinda like a city income tax, sounds great, vertial utopia, clean streets, great parks, lovely homes, …
.. Problem is, business leaves, real taxpayers leave, and you are left with a ghetto with no tax base .

Its not my system, its reality!

If you think that I don’t care about people working at the lower end of the wage scale, you are mistaken.

Greg & Misha,
I thought that our Supreme Court is the Law of the Land; therefore, their rulings are absolute regradless what one thinks.

Beagle & Christopher,
On the minimum wage issue you are both forgetting the reason that the law exist in the first place. Businesses are driven by profits regardless of who or what it effects. People are driven to work in order to support their life regradless of any law they may break. Thus it is in the general welfare of our country that our government sets a wage that promotes the society ability to move people out of poverty.

Although Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage to $7.00/hr, our economy has to be able to include that price in the cost of doing business or raise prices to offset the expenses. What I would like to see our country do is to figure a way to raise the minimum wage without increasing the payroll taxes. In doing that we will get a bigger kick in the economy while maintaining lower costs for employers. BTW did Bush say he wanted to raise minimum wage because the last thing I heard is that he was oppose to the idea right now.

In regard to Chris’s point about paying someone enough to make them “economically happy and safe”, I’d have to say that I don’t see how $7.00 per hour does either of those things. It still ends up as $13,440 per year, which I doubt many would consider economically safe.

So the real question is: If the goal is to make someone economically happy and safe, how high does the minimum wage need to be in order to do so.

Of course, one could change the argument and say simply that $7.00 is better than $5.35, which of course it is. But that argument alone doesn’t really hold water, since we can also say that $8 is better than $7, and $20 is better than $8, ….. and on an on.

JBD,
I wonder what the extremist against minimum wage would say if we made the argument that it is in our country’s national interest that all Americans was financial secured. And yes, I can back up that statement.

Henry, Yes the Supreme court interprets law, it doesn’t mean we can’t argue about it.

On your statement about about financial security, huh? I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you are saying.

JBOD, good point.

I think a minimum wage is necessary to prevent “entrepreneurs” from gouging the economicly disadvantaged. There is an arguement that if we raise the minimum wage too high that unemployment will rise. But doesn’t underemployment exist too? I have a problem with those who hire and pay exceedingly low wages while continuing to pay themselves excessively. Even though they could not generate the cash flow without employees, they seem to be the only ones who really profit. The employees subsist. I’ve worked for companies like that. Is that fair? Or is it a con job? Would they go out of business? Or is it that they would become rich less quickly? Not everyone that calls themselves an entrepreneur really offers something better. Sometimes they are just good at swindling people. Slow growth may not please wall street, or investors , but sometimes it is really better economically.

Greg,
The flu vaccine shortage is a good example of way every American should be individually financial secure. How much money will someone have to pay to save their child’s life? It is clear Bush is lost in space on this issue.

Henry:

Im not clear where you are heading with your comment about financial security and national interest. I’d love a country where everyone willing to work for it was financially secure, but that’s simply not a realistic hope.

I guess part of the question is determining what “financially secure” means. Once you have defined what level or earnings allows for financial security, you then simply have to divide that by 2000 hours annually to arrive at the suitable per hour wage necessary to provide that annual income. If $20,000 provides financial security, then 20,000/2000=$10 perhour.

At $7 per hour, 7 x 2000 hrs=$14,000 annual income. Is this enough to provide financial security?

JBD,
What about teaching/forcing people to save. Almost every financial advisor will tell you that you need between 3-6 months of liquidable savings plus an emergancy fund that considers your personal obligations (i.e. family and such).

So you see it is more of a minimum wage increase we need to ensure people are financial secure. What we need is a minimum living standard income/investment plan that is based on reality.

Henry,

It seems you want to pass laws mandating Inteligence.

“What about teaching/forcing people to save. Almost every financial advisor will tell you that you need between 3-6 months of liquidable savings plus an emergancy fund that considers your personal obligations (i.e. family and such).”

Will that work ??

Henry:

Do you really want government to mandate what people can buy, how much savings they have, whether they can afford a vacation, what type of car they should own? By your statement that we might want to teach/force people to save, these are areas in which you would have to delve.

Its neither workable nor Constitutional.

Of course people should save money. But to mandate it??? Never.

Misha
Excellent post.
Its a real shame that our country has come to the point it is at now. The Constitution is only good when it supports one sides cause. If it is against a cause, then it should be fixed or discarded, like a dirty rag.
Just to let you know, I am pro-choice, an atheist, believe in stem cell research and favor gay marriage. But because I still believe the US Constitution and that we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy, I am considered a right wing extremist by the left.
Its amazing at how much better the country would be if the court would just enforce the the words of the Constitution instead of “interpreting” them to mean what supports their agenda.
Without the Constitution the US will become a democracy, which is happening today, and will be no different than all the democracy’s that control their people.
Hopefully I am dead before this finishes. I love freedom to much.

Beagle & JBD,
Not no, but HELL NO!! would I mandate forced savings. However, I do support every effect to force our school system to mandate “Household Economics” which will teach our children the art of saving and using credit wisely.

By linking this teaching program with the minimum wage/livable wage issue, we can get a better handle on guiding (with a baseball bat if necessary) people to take control of their finances. 20 years ago most people could not tell you what a bank CD was; however, many quickly learned how to use them in the late 80’s and 90’s.

kctim- there are less and less of us, sadly. You can see from the posts on this thread- even intelligent people are results-oriented, and they cant see how they are destroying the foundation that this country is built on in order to win a victory in the issue of the day.

If by destroying you mean being overly anal retentively stuck to fundamentalistic literal interpretations that put blinders on to reality, then I agree.

The only problem with the savings idea, is that you have to have “expendible income”. That amount above your day to day needs. How much expendible income is available at $7.00 an hour.

I have an idea: lets give the top 10 % a tax cut that’ll help those minimum wagers save!!! :)

Misha
You are so very correct, as which was just proven above. Why people are so willing to spit on the Constitution and for all it stands for, I will never know.
Maybe when it comes down to bullets again, people will finally see that it wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

Its amazing at how much better the country would be if the court would just enforce the the words of the Constitution instead of “interpreting” them

And maybe we can get rid of those pesky “amendments” too. If they were important, they would have been included in the Constitution itself, wouldn’t they?

AP
If those Amendments distort or change the original meaning of the Constitution, then yes, we should get rid of them.
The Constitution was designed so it could grow if needed, it was not designed to give all the power and responsibility to the govt.

Henry my friend,

You said;

‘Beagle & JBD,
Not no, but HELL NO!! would I mandate forced savings. However, I do support every effect to force our school system to mandate “Household Economics” which will teach our children the art of saving and using credit wisely.”

I totaly agree, kids aint learning the basics in school, math, science, and economics.(spelling too, I’m a lousy speller).

Later in life, it wont mean poop if they know when George Washington threw Abraham Lincon
over the potomic, if they can’t balance a damn checkbook ! (pun intended).
After basics, require shop and homeecomonics, learn to fix a leakie water pipe, cook, and sew a freaking button back on…sompin like that.
All that should be complete by 9th-10th grade.

After you master that you can go into the artsie-fartsie stuff to prepair for higher learning.
I would trash the NEA and hire (really smart retired army drill sargents to teach basics).

I may be playing the “hayseed thing” a little, but I’m being honest about education being the key.

Just think what could have happened if I had recieved a proper education, I could be writing books now!….scarry huh ?

Amazing.
Well, let’s not debate anything, just accuse the other side of being destructive or spitting. That’s so much easier than supporting your own empty arguments.

Greg, the problem is that when I gave you careful analysis of the structure of the Constitution you responded with:
“Misha, actually I do. I see the Constitution as a frame work. I do not see it as a restrictive document. Yes, the argument that limited government was the intent of the framers is valid, but we have learned a thing or two in the last 200 years.”

The problem is that by saying the enumerated powers are meaningless (all that is required is “general welfare”) you have discarded any concern for the framework of the constitution or fidelity to that document. You want to throw the constitution out the window because you find it incovinient to what you want to accomplish- there is no way around that fact. You did not even try to find your programs within the enumerated powers, you just said it was a good idea, therefor it must be constitutional. And you talk about “empty arguments.” Like it or not, if you want to respect the constitution, you must respect the doctrine of enumerated powers. If you want to discard that limitation, you might as well discard the idea of constitutional government.

By the way Kctim, you should be voting for Kerry since you share his beliefs.

I’m sorry you are so opposed to democracy. I’ve always thought we WERE a democratic republic and that the constitution was the framework upon which that was established. I’ve also thought law to be something living and changing with society, not a biblical decree cast upon stone tablets that we are to worship. Somehow, I thought the people we supposed to count for something.
But then I’m not so Regal as to dismiss everyone else as stupid or evil.

Actually- there is a great way to change the constitution to fit the times Greg- its called Article V amendments. Let me ask you this- you respect the Bill of Rights- correct? What if we just starting ignoring the provisions that protect freedom of speech, right to jury trial (in fact, we are doing that between Gitmo and campaign finance reform). Would you say “oh well, you know, the constitution changes so its fine- let the people have their way.” Or would you say- “wait a second, the constitution is supposed to withstand changes in the political wind- thats the entire point of a constitution!” Isnt he point of having a constitution to protect certain things?

Oh- wait a second- you support Roe v. Wade- so you believe that things that are NOT in the constitution (protection of abortions) should be protected from the majority, but things that ARE in the constitution (enumerated powers) should be ignored… am I getting that right?

Misha, thank you for your response.

This is where I disagree.
Why did the framers put the statement General
Welfare there, Misha? You are the one dismissing a critical part of the Constiution. The framers left in “outs” because they did not presume to know everything about the future. The limitations are primarily on power. The checks and balances are there for that.

They did not restrict the government so that it could not promote the general welfare of society.
Misha, I’m sorry but your literal interpretations just don’t wash. They also set up the Judiciary to resolve these sort of disputes. We can agree to disagree on this, but don’t throw out the Supreme Court interpretations, or you are ignoring another facet of the constiuution.

Beagle,
What gets me is that was the way our education system was until our congress broke it up in the early eighties under Reagan.

What I want to see is us combine faster learning at younger ages 3-7 because that is where a child learns the most. Allow the children to exprience learning right from wrong (8-11) and than introduce them to their world and let them find their calling, path, or career. Don’t you think it is funny that when people are given the responsiblity of doing right or wrong the majority of us does what is right for all of America?

Greg & Misha,
Your comments on the constitution caught my eye, and your views intrigged me. While I see both sides of your arguments, I am missing your reasons for your findings.

Greg, you correctly point out the fact that our constitution is a “Living Document.” However, Misha is correctly pointing out the “Limitation” of our Federal Government. Yet, both of you fail to realize that up until the 80’s, most of the “Power of the People” rested at the state levels. While this has lead into a more Prefect Nation, we have failed to ensure Domestic Tranquility, by introducing “City Life” into the country small towns and trying to introduce “Country Values” into the cities.

Yes, our Federal government is responsible for the General Welfare of every citizen the problems begin and end by trying to mandate how every citizen in this country should live their life. If we are ever going to return to a real constitutional lead country we must first take back the State’s Right’s that have been taken from them by both the Democrats and Republicans leaders.

“the problems begin and end by trying to mandate how every citizen in this country should live their life.”

AMEN HENRY

Henry,

You are right, EXECPT, I see nothing in the bill of rights or the Constatution that says…stupid teachers should be trying to teach stupid kids.

The system we have now doesn’t work !

Liberals bitching about lost jobs in industry, will fall on deaf ears, untill we get rid of the dumbass teachers that attemp to teach our children.

Beagle,
If you know of a teacher in your local school that does not meet your standard than you need to take it up with your local school board. However, you might want to find out first if the teacher is restricted on how and what they are allowed to teach by the school board. Did you know your local school board has the legal right to teach your kids that the world is flat?

By the way there is no such thing as “stupid kids.” They may not have the knowledge and thus be ignorant, but stupid is knowing better and still doing it anyways.

Misha,
I find your arguments interesting, but not compelling, at least not yet.

Again, I think the general welfare verbage allows for wide latitude in this area. There are still the normal legislative restraints.

Your argument about admendments reminds me that Texas has a constitution that is admended for every sneeze and cough in Austin. That constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

I have searched for court cases regarding this matter but have been unable to locate any.If you know of any resources I may read , I’d appreciate the info. I confess I’m not a constitutional or legal scholar by any means.

With regards to the bill of rights those amendments are worded in such as a way “as you shall not restrict” so that the argument doen’t really, apply here. Arbitration may violate admendment 7. And I agree that GITMO violates the bill of rights for US citizens, and treaties for aliens. I think there are frequent illegal searches and seizures.

The issue on abortion is the state has no right to interfere in my private relationship with my doctor regarding my treatment, as I’m sure you know. There has never been an argument about “right to abortion”.

Is the “extra constitutional” nature of the department of education your only complaint against it? You seem to have some sort of fear about it. I’m just curious. While I have doubts about its efficacy and bureaucratic waste. I don’t see it as particularly harmful.

Greg- I will tip my hand since you have come to this issue honestly and this makes me happy :). As far as the supreme court is concerned, there is no limitation on Congress’ spending and taxing power (at least not since the 1930s). This has gone hand in hand with the Courts’ decision in the 1930s to basically get out of any economic regulation, spending, taxing that Congress might do. This has taken a small step back during Lopez/Morrison, but only minor.

Now, I think this is all nonsense and let me explain to you why I think this. The thing is- I do not think any power should be able to swallow up the enumerate powers and make our government completely different from its design (that is, one that can only accomplish certain limited ends). Let me give you an example- so perhaps you can see what I mean by this being a problem. Here at Georgetown Law Center, most of the students and faculty are against allowing the military to recruit on our campus because of the dont-ask-dont-tell policy being homophobic. Now what the federal government has done is used its SPENDING power to say “well, we are gonna withdraw all federal funds from your school if you dont comply and let us recruit.” You see, this is a problem because the federal government has no power to regulate our school in this manner, but by using its spending power it has effectively regulated our school (the taxes are such that if we refuse the money, we are basically giving away millions of dollars, and we still have to pay taxes to fund our competitor schools). I think this a major problem, and why the spending and taxing clauses should be limited to the enumerated powers. What do you think- its an argument that the supreme court does nto want to take up because it has really withdrawn itself from ecomomic affairs.

As far as the department of education- i do think its extra-constitution, but I also think it is harmful and potentially dangerous. I do not want that much power of our children’s education centralized in the hands of the goverment- because I distrust government (just look at the dont-ask-dont-tell example above). I would want education as decentralized as possible, and even to the point where all government does is give kids vouchers and allow parents to choose their schools. But, for now, I would like to do away with the federal department of education because I think its a dangerous thing- and also an inefficient use of money (besides being extraconstitutional).

Misha,
On funding for your school to get you to do what the federal government wants you to do:

While I do not agree with the pratice, it is left up to the freewill of the school to choose so how does that take away your rights?

As for education, most of the power has been returned to the local school boards over the last 15 years.

Henry
Look at Mishas statement concerning GW and the military recruiters.
While saying they are returning power back to local school boards, they still bully them into accepting their guidelines by withholding money.

kctim,
Like I said, I do not agree with the pratice, yet as a representive government “We the People” continue to allow it to happen. Now, if we were smart we would begin a systematic removal of all Congress members and demand they change the rules on how Congress operates. Do you know that as a Congress person you are not allowed to publicly discuss certain issues?

Yes Henry, I was aware of what you asked.
As for the rest of your post though, it really brings tears of happiness to my eyes to see someone actually use the words “representive government” and “systematic removal of all Congress members.”
Thanks

kctim,
Do you realize that the republican party has figured that out and is using to get elected? Although the one’s in charge of the politics are abusing their powers, Newt was right when him and others stood up in 94. The problem was they failded to break the “Boys.”

Imagine what a thrid party candidate could if he/she selected that model to run on? The American citizens are ready for a change and live in a promise world unfinished. Our country has wasted forty years trying to get it right. Today, we have the knowledge and know-how to build that promised world. What we lack is a president who sees the forest for the trees.

Look at Bush’s stump speeches, they are about bashing Kerry. Than look at Kerry’s stump speeches, Edwards and him talk about how we can begin to build that world. Call me selfish, but I want that life. If going to the moon could be like driven across a state, you couldn,t get me off the road. While terrorism will always be a problem, I don’t want to have to put my life on hold while some idiots want to use bullets instead of words.

Misha,

Thanks for your analysis. I understand and somewhat agree with you, but I think it’s a bit of an overreaction to say that the department of education is extraconstitutional.

My understanding is they only provide about 10% of the funding to most school districts. I also understand your concern over the use of funding as control over local districts, however, if a district wants to be free from regulation, they shouldn’t take the funding.

In Houston, where I work, there is one of about 40-50 private testing laboratories (Civil Engineering)that simply chooses not to do any city,county or federal work to avoid his business having to comply with their rules. He has plenty of business. Most government work pays higher profit margins which makes me supicious of privatizing a lot of infrastructure type work. It turns into little more than corporate welfare, and the workers are only interested in pleasing their company not how it affects the public interest.
The workers end up with worse benefits and the company owners end up rich. The public ends up with a worse work product.

My understanding of the major role that the Fed Dept of Education has played was in Johnson’s adminisrtation (HEW then) was in funding appalachian school districts to bring them up to modern standards. That has made a very positive difference there. My parents were teenagers in Eastern Kentucky in the 40’s and the one room school house was reality there until the 60’s. Things are much different these days. They are as modern as most school districts.

I agree that most centralized agencies are little more than useless with highly compensated bureaucrats shuffling a bunch of paper.

This is where the voucher system worries me. I become concerned when a national agency tries to run local districts. I don’t really see that with the Dept of Education at this point.

Henry
90% of kerry’s speeches are about bashing Bush. The rest is filled with, ridiculous statements, like making people walk and universal healthcare without raising taxes. kerry’s promises are just as ridiculous as Bush’s.

So fire them both. However, I would like someone in our White House that engages the America People into a conversation than Bush’s run in and “Bar the Doors” policies.

Henry
You have once again place me into a position where I can offer no valid rebuttal to your post.
I agree with you yet again.

kctim,
And to think the libertarian party test calls me a liberal. While I do believe our government should protect us from the wolfs of our society, I still hold firm to the idea that people will do the right thing by nature if they are given a equal and fair terms to do so.

Blasphemy Henry. LOL
And to think we are so apart in our views of kerry. Weird