Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional

[rdean]

The candidates were on Morning Joe this morning and boy, did they have an earful.

Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional.

Head Start, U.S. educational program for disadvantaged preschool children, established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Aimed initially only at poor children, its purpose was to organize programs that would prepare preschool children for elementary school. Money was appropriated through the Office of Economic Opportunity, which made individual grants to cities and other localities to set up Head Start centers. In 1969 the program was transferred to the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services). It was later extended to children above the poverty level, whose parents, however, had to pay according to their income.

Head Start definition of Head Start in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

Ron said we need to get rid of social programs so we can begin to help people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U]Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube[/ame]

So is it "anti education" or "every man for himself".

Then there's Mitt, who won't release his tax returns saying the middle class and poor envy the rich. Let's see. If he has 200 million and paid what I pay, would that mean he really earned 270 or 280 million and he paid 70 million or more in taxes?

Oh yea. And you thought Hawaii refusing to release Obama's birth certificate was bad. And Obama had to follow state law. Will the Mitt hit the fan? Because he has a "choice", something he wants to deny others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ron Paul is a character and a bit of a curmudgeon. He is a complete ideologue and seems not to have a pragmatic bone in his head.

 

[LibertyForAll]

well in my wifes home town they have headstart and it is one of the only preschools in town because the town is rather small. They give priority to underpriviledged kids and only have a few slots for those above the povertly level. So if we moved there my kids would not be allowed to go to preschool because of government interference. How is that equal?

 

[jillian]

Ron Paul is a character and a bit of a curmudgeon. He is a complete ideologue and seems not to have a pragmatic bone in his head.

i think that makes him an extremist toon.... but he isn't a "complete ideologue"... his idea of persona freedom doesn't exist for women.

not to mention his total and complete hypocrisy.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is unconstitutional... and I am not a Paul guy

Education is for the states, not for the Fed to have their nose in

 

[jillian]

It is unconstitutional... and I am not a Paul guy

Education is for the states, not for the Fed to have their nose in

funny... the supreme court disagrees. *shrug*

ever hear of the 'general welfare' clause.

seriously, dd...

 

[DiamondDave]

It is unconstitutional... and I am not a Paul guy

Education is for the states, not for the Fed to have their nose in

funny... the supreme court disagrees. *shrug*

ever hear of the 'general welfare' clause.

seriously, dd...

And it is not specifically laid out in the general welfare clause, nor under the specific enumerated powers.... and amendment 10 says exactly what happens when a power is not specifically granted to the fed...

again... general welfare of the United States has an entirely different meaning than when leaving off "of the United States" like many expanded government power people like to state...

And the SC is also not immune to power grabs (like the rest of our power hungry govt).... as evidenced by 'decisions' such as this

 

[Jackson]

Why did he say it was unconsitutional? Perhaps because it was discriminatory? Well, then he's right, but then, all welfare is. Paul is in his own little world.

 

[jillian]

It is unconstitutional... and I am not a Paul guy

Education is for the states, not for the Fed to have their nose in

funny... the supreme court disagrees. *shrug*

ever hear of the 'general welfare' clause.

seriously, dd...

And it is not specifically laid out in the general welfare clause, nor under the specific enumerated powers.... and amendment 10 says exactly what happens when a power is not specifically granted to the fed...

again... general welfare of the United States has an entirely different meaning than when leaving off "of the United States" like many expanded government power people like to state...

And the SC is also not immune to power grabs (like the rest of our power hungry govt).... as evidenced by 'decisions' such as this

the point of the general welfare clause was to let government do things that were NOT spelled out.

the "constitutionalists" (/sarcasm) should really read a case or two.

... or ten.

it's kind of silly already.

if the power was supposed to be in the states like righties who hate desegretation and hate roe v wade and hate federal standards for education which prevent them from pretending creationism is science wish, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

this battle ended with the civil war. trying to relitigate it by electing pretend constitutionalists evetually will fail totally.

most justices love the constitution more than they love their party.

well, except for scalia and thomas... but that's for another thread.

 

[occupied]

It's unconstitutional because it helps people. His social Darwinism would be worse than any tyranny any of the others or Obama could inflict on us.

 

[dblack]

Why did he say it was unconsitutional? Perhaps because it was discriminatory? Then all welfare is.

Because it's not in the constitution. I'd assume that Paul is taking the position that most libertarians take on the 'general welfare' clause - namely that it's a qualifier on the taxation power and was never meant as a blank check congressional power.

 

[Katzndogz]

Head Start is unconstitutional. The general welfare clause applies to the general welfare of states. It doesn't mean everyone gets a check.

Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation.

 

[jillian]

Why did he say it was unconsitutional? Perhaps because it was discriminatory? Well, then he's right, but then, all welfare is. Paul is in his own little world.

head start is welfare???

really?

interesting.

your definition of "welfare" must be pretty broad.

does it extend to free medical care for the military?
military housing?
exempting military people from civil suit while they're in service?

 

[Katzndogz]

Why did he say it was unconsitutional? Perhaps because it was discriminatory? Well, then he's right, but then, all welfare is. Paul is in his own little world.

head start is welfare???

really?

interesting.

your definition of "welfare" must be pretty broad.

does it extend to free medical care for the military?
military housing?
exempting military people from civil suit while they're in service?

It's part of their compensation from serving in the mlitary. Being in the military does not exempt anyone from a civil suit. It prohibits taking the default of a service member while they are serving outside of the jurisdiction.

 

[madasheck]

I happened to tune into MSNBC last night and caught the end of Ron Paul's speech. "Ramblings" is a better term. It was awful.

 

[madasheck]

Head Start is unconstitutional. The general welfare clause applies to the general welfare of states. It doesn't mean everyone gets a check.

Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation.

And how is helping kids a bad thing? I'd also say "Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation," but not for the reason you're implying.

 

[Luissa]

My son was in Head Start when I was in school, they ran the day care at the school. Best day care he was ever in. His teachers were awesome, and his therapists from another facility were allowed to come there for his therapy time. I also paid about $1000 for the quarter out of my pocket. Which is probably around the same I would pay anywhere else.

 

[DiamondDave]

Head Start is unconstitutional. The general welfare clause applies to the general welfare of states. It doesn't mean everyone gets a check.

Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation.

And how is helping kids a bad thing? I'd also say "Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation," but not for the reason you're implying.

The states can have the power to choose if they want entitlement programs for the helping of kids....

Just because something can seem subjectively 'good' in the eyes of some, does not mean that the government is granted constitutional power to do that 'good'

And if the fed wants that power, or the populace wants the fed to have that power, we have the amendment process to go thru to get that power specifically laid out in the constitution

 

[madasheck]

My son was in Head Start when I was in school, they ran the day care at the school. Best day care he was ever in. His teachers were awesome, and his therapists from another facility were allowed to come there for his therapy time. I also paid about $1000 for the quarter out of my pocket. Which is probably around the same I would pay anywhere else.

It's amazing how empty some politicians who claim to know what they are talking about are. Some of what Paul says intrigues me only because he's not in the GOP cattle call, but things like this prove he'll never be in the White House.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

It is unconstitutional... and I am not a Paul guy

Education is for the states, not for the Fed to have their nose in

funny... the supreme court disagrees. *shrug*

ever hear of the 'general welfare' clause.

seriously, dd...

I know using "General Welfare" is great and all when it suits you, but it is a massively slippery slope. Saying that it's a power, and not just more of a mission statement like I believe, means that the government can do whatever the hell they want. And all they have do to is make some BS argument that it will help someone somewhere.