Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't believe that education is a vital national interest, then the federal government has no business being involved in education.

On the other hand, if you don't believe that education is a vital national interest, then you're an idiot.

 

[Vel]

Long Overdue Head Start Evaluation Shows No Lasting Benefit for Children
Lindsey BurkeJanuary 14, 2010 at 10:03 am59 Comments

After some prodding, yesterday the Obama administration released the long-overdue first grade evaluation of the federal Head Start program. As expected, the results show that the $7 billion per year program provides little benefit to children – and great expense to taxpayers.

Obama Administration Report Shows Head Start Ineffective

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Jill... employment compensation and benefit is much different than entitlement to the populace

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

His speeches usually are. Sprinkled with the word Constitution whether the use is appropriate or not.

 

[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.

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.

My son also goes to a Special Pre School at a public school, very good program. When he started at Headstart and at the public school he made huge improvements. Before that he was at a school for children 0 to 3 with disabilities, and they of course get a lot of federal funding.
My son 30 years ago would have slipped through the system. Now he will probably be able to enter a regular kindergarten class when that time comes.

 

[Luissa]

Thomas Jefferson is also one of the people who first set up schools to be funded by the government.. They didn't want education to just be for the upper class anymore.
The OPs statement in another post is prime example of this. His problem with headstart is that it caters to low income children.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you don't believe that education is a vital national interest, then the federal government has no business being involved in education.

On the other hand, if you don't believe that education is a vital national interest, then you're an idiot.

Your doing better in the educational system would be considered by some 'vital national interest'... that does not grant the fed the power to pay for your tutoring either...
Your living longer and producing more would be considered by some 'vital national interest'... that does not mean that the fed has the power to take over your upkeep...
Your eating of the healthiest food on a regular basis in optimal quantities would be considered by some 'vital national interest'... that does not mean that the fed has the power to confiscate or obtain these food stuffs to then distribute to you...

Education is not a granted power of the fed... and hence why the states and local jurisdictions within the states do and should have the power over such things...

 

[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.

My son also goes to a Special Pre School at a public school, very good program. When he started at Headstart and at the public school he made huge improvements. Before that he was at a school for children 0 to 3 with disabilities, and they of course get a lot of federal funding.
My son 30 years ago would have slipped through the system. Now he will probably be able to enter a regular kindergarten class when that time comes.

Congrats to you and your son. It's really heartwarming to read that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Thomas Jefferson is also one of the people who first set up schools to be funded by the government.. They didn't want education to just be for the upper class anymore.
The OPs statement in another post is prime example of this. His problem with headstart is that it caters to low income children.

Would not matter if it were only for rich kids.. or for every kid.... it should not be a power handled by the federal government... that is unless it goes thru the amendment process to specifically grant that power to the fed

 

[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...

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.

like i said... try reading a case

or ten...

 

[Wacky Quacky]

If you don't believe that education is a vital national interest, then the federal government has no business being involved in education.

On the other hand, if you don't believe that education is a vital national interest, then you're an idiot.

What if I believe that education is a national interest and that's why I want the Feds out of it. Our educational standing has only gone down since they took over.

 

[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?

Jill... employment compensation and benefit is much different than entitlement to the populace

head start is a benefit societally...

that's what government is supposed to do.

serious question... why do people on the right pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like?

the document and the analysis done of the document in our caselaw is pretty clear that the general welfare and commerce clauses are pretty broad.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with Head Start is that the parents use it as a neato free baby sitter.

The program has been a massive failure.

HHS Report Shows Head Start ID Education Failure
How the Media Are Covering ‘Head Start’s’ Failure | Cato @ Liberty
Head Start Racked by Failure and Fraud - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Vel]

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?

Jill... employment compensation and benefit is much different than entitlement to the populace

head start is a benefit societally...

that's what government is supposed to do.

serious question... why do people on the right pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like?

the document and the analysis done of the document in our caselaw is pretty clear that the general welfare and commerce clauses are pretty broad.

They have done multiple studies that show that headstart has no long lasting benefits. Even the Obama administration was forced to admit that. Would we not do better to take that money and do something useful with it? Or at least be honest an say that it's a federally sponsored babysitting service.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube

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.

This is concening that video.

Did he say he was on foodstamps and welfare yet no one helpe him out?

OKAY---Am I the only one confused by that statement? Was he trying to say he pulled himself up out of poveerty by the bootstraps,and government assistance?

Oh yes, this political season is gettin pretty thick with theBS

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

like i said... try reading a case

or ten...

Could you point me to one?

I'm more interested in reading what the SCotUS said on the subject. It won't change how I feel about a "power" that is limitless in interpretation.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

So Congress passes an Act and you think it's Constitutional? You mean like The Patriot Act?

If Congress passed the "All Black People Are Slaves Again" Act would you say it's Constitutional?

Pull your head out while there's still time.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

like i said... try reading a case

or ten...

Yes indeed, you would benefit from a little light reading.

Article 1, Section 8:


“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;”

This section specifically defines to which body or entity the general welfare clause is to apply. Since the United States is specifically made up of the States themselves, this clause applies to the States as a whole and not the People. The Constitution addresses specific entities throughout the document. The People as an entity are only addressed twice in the main body of the US Constitution and in no case does the General Welfare clause apply to the People specifically.

US Consitution General Welfare | What Does General Welfare Mean? | University of Common Sense

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

"to promote the general welfare".. not what you think it means | PreciousOnyx on Xanga

If the government really had the general welfare clause that liberals want it to have, the government could mandate healthful sleep for everyone. Buy a sleep number bed with a memory foam mattress. The welfare office will be handing free ones out to the poor.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Jill... employment compensation and benefit is much different than entitlement to the populace

head start is a benefit societally...

that's what government is supposed to do.

serious question... why do people on the right pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like?

the document and the analysis done of the document in our caselaw is pretty clear that the general welfare and commerce clauses are pretty broad.

Guaranteed sex for everyone could be construed as a benefit to society as well...

But government is NOT supposed to be there for the individual benefit of everyone...

As stated... the SC is not above the power grabs that we also see in the other parts of our government.... the language in the simple section of the Constitution is quite clear... unless you have an agenda or the will to grab more power, as we have seen within our government continually

Hey... if it went thru the process to do an amendment to grant that power, I would no longer argue the constitutionality even if I disagreed with the power granted....

 

[Katzndogz]

Jill... employment compensation and benefit is much different than entitlement to the populace

head start is a benefit societally...

that's what government is supposed to do.

serious question... why do people on the right pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like?

the document and the analysis done of the document in our caselaw is pretty clear that the general welfare and commerce clauses are pretty broad.

Guaranteed sex for everyone could be construed as a benefit to society as well...

But government is NOT supposed to be there for the individual benefit of everyone...

As stated... the SC is not above the power grabs that we also see in the other parts of our government.... the language in the simple section of the Constitution is quite clear... unless you have an agenda or the will to grab more power, as we have seen within our government continually

Hey... if it went thru the process to do an amendment to grant that power, I would no longer argue the constitutionality even if I disagreed with the power granted....

There are many people who think that sex is a guaranteed right now!