Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Neither is the indivdual right to own a handgun, but we don't hear Paul whining about it.

 

[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.

Neither is the indivdual right to own a handgun, but we don't hear Paul whining about it.

Not sure what kind of comparison you're trying to make. Rights and the enumerated powers of congress are very different things. With the exception of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't define our rights. It does define the power of the federal government.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Neither is the indivdual right to own a handgun, but we don't hear Paul whining about it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Own is not used... nor is the specific term handgun... of that you are correct... but for the people (notice it does not say The United States, which is what they used to specify the union... and not that when they want to specify a right of the people or for the people they say it SPECIFICALLY) to keep and bear arms (which pretty much covers handguns, axes, bastard swords, halberds, shotguns, etc)

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

It was doomed to do anything else. When the government decided that standards of competence were to be scrapped as unfair the standing has gone down. Education today is equality of outcome at the lowest common denominator.

 

[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.

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...

The fact that the federal government is involved in education, nutrition, and health proves you wrong.

You can believe what you believe, but de facto, the federal government has constitutional powers in those areas.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Maybe a little idealism is exactly what we need. If anything we are suffering from too much 'pragmatism'. Pragmatism is why politicians get themselves in the messes they get into and can't explain their voting records. They run on their idealism then Washington teaches them they have to make make 'pragmatic' deals to get legislation done behind closed doors. Or they have to 'pragmatically' trade a vote, voting against their ideals to get something else they want passed. Or they have to accept donations from all kinds of of external sources essentially requiring them to priorities their wants first to have a 'pragmatic' chance at election or re-election. They be whomever the audience of the moment demands them to be because they believe getting people to think you think like they do is the most 'pragmatic' way to get votes. Pragmatism is what convinces politicians to skirt around what the constitution allows to get what they want.

Pragmatism needs to go. Plenty of americans are tired of it. I would rather have a nominee that sticks to his beliefs and tries to convince people his way is the right way, the best way, forward instead of being some 'pragmatic' sell out trying to pretend he's everything to everyone.

 

[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...

The fact that the federal government is involved in education, nutrition, and health proves you wrong.

You can believe what you believe, but de facto, the federal government has constitutional powers in those areas.

No... it only proves that the government has overstepped what is specifically granted within the constitution... and that it will most probably continue to do this unless drastic change is made

 

[Bern80]

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.

No jillian. it's the other way around. It's you who uses case law as a crutch rather than the constituion that needs to go back and actually read the constitution. You are such a naive person to believe that the courts have NEVER misinterpreted the spirit of the constitution. As to the rest of crap rant, what a load of shit. yeah if the states had more power we'd have discriminatino run amuck and creationism everywher. Get fucking real for once.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

The fact that the federal government is involved in education, nutrition, and health proves you wrong.

You can believe what you believe, but de facto, the federal government has constitutional powers in those areas.

No... it only proves that the government has overstepped what is specifically granted within the constitution... and that it will most probably continue to do this unless drastic change is made

No, it only means that like most everything in life, there is always some cult of peculiar people who take an extreme minority contrary view of the reality of the situation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Ron Paul thinks Head Start is unconstitutional, then maybe he should take some of the money that he is throwing away pretending to be a presidential candidate and devote it to challenging Head Start's existence in COURT...

...which happens to be the constitutionally prescribed manner of dealing with such things.

 

[DiamondDave]

The fact that the federal government is involved in education, nutrition, and health proves you wrong.

You can believe what you believe, but de facto, the federal government has constitutional powers in those areas.

No... it only proves that the government has overstepped what is specifically granted within the constitution... and that it will most probably continue to do this unless drastic change is made

No, it only means that like most everything in life, there is always some cult of peculiar people who take an extreme minority contrary view of the reality of the situation.

And there always people to take things as written in a law or constitution... and not jump leaps and bounds beyond what was mandated... unfortunately for our country, that is not what the government has done and that is not what you and your progressive ilk support

 

[Avorysuds]

It's unconstitutional, end of story. I'm not sure there is a single argument that could not be made if you used the GW clause to say why Government should provide funding, a service or a war if used the way it is today.

The FF did not even agree with how the GW clause is used today, in fact they said if it was used wrong then we would end up with the exact problem we see today… Shocking how 200 years ago the saw predicted our future. It just goes to show how little has really changed. Next up, HC is a right, lol….


You know if we were not allowed to run up massive deficits none of this would even be up for debate. You can do anything when there is money, in this case the more money we print the less the value of your dollar is... In this case the more money we have to borrow to pretend we are #1 cripples us as a nation. Use the GWC all you like, it won't last much longer... what 10 years, 20 years? At this rate the deficit will be around 30 Trillion in 10 years and near 50 Trillion in 20... That's with Obama's (lol) cuts.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So people see the trend in our educational standards since the Dept of Education came to be, and they want that now extended to more children?



I guess you can only love children if you want their education to be shit, and to have a desire to have our pockets taxed empty in order to achieve said shit, makes perfect sense.

 

[Bern80]

The fact that the federal government is involved in education, nutrition, and health proves you wrong.

You can believe what you believe, but de facto, the federal government has constitutional powers in those areas.

No... it only proves that the government has overstepped what is specifically granted within the constitution... and that it will most probably continue to do this unless drastic change is made

No, it only means that like most everything in life, there is always some cult of peculiar people who take an extreme minority contrary view of the reality of the situation.

It's sad that you can't see what is so obvious to so many. It is undeniable that our government does more now and thus has more power than it ever has. It is just bazarr to me that liberals like yourself and jillian fight so hard to vest a seemingly unlimited amount of power to do whatever you deem is 'good' in central government. You have to be a complete moron to not understand the problem with, what on the face, look like compassionate, reasonable things for government to do. This country was founded by people fleeing the tyranny of governments. It is governments having too much power that have been historically shown to be the downfall of societies and the enemy of freedom, not it's citizens. You have to be blind to not see that it is better to err on the side of limiting what central government can do in order to prevent tyranny rather than simply allowing government to do whatever sounds good at the time. It is meant to be limited, not to prevent that which we can all agree is an overstep of power. It is meant to prevent the tyranny that arises as government seizes more power doing what seems compassionate and is propogated as being in the people's best interest. Which is why, despite what may initially sound compassionate, the central government should not be involved in such matters.

 

[Foxfyre]

In late 2009, the Dept. of Health and Human Services released a sophisticated multi-year study. I read this study and don't have a link but it's should be on the government website somewhere. I didn't want to take time to hunt it down.

Anyhow, what I recall. from that study is that out of 44 (I think) cognitive tests given to First Graders who had attended Head Start programs, only two showed even marginally significant effects. On the other 42 no effect at all. And my local statistical gurus tell me that even that may be overstating the success because on each of the tests there is a one in ten chance of getting a false positive so we can't even know if the program helped in those two areas. In fact in separate tests, those positives could not be authenticated.

Since the mid sixties, we've paid $166 billion into the program, with each Congress adding a little more until currently we serve about one million kids with a budget of $7 billion. That billion with a B. That translates to $7,000 per kid.

Do you think we're getting our money's worth? What could you do for your kids with an extra $7,000? Do you even pay $7,000 in federal income taxes in a year?

This is one area I agree fully with Ron Paul. There is no basis in the Constitution for social engineering of any kind, and the original intent of the Founders was that the general welfare would benefit all, rich and poor alike, equally with no favors dispensed to any particular group. Head Start and ALL similar programs are unConstitutional.

But we'll probably need another amendment to get that fully established and stopped and prevent the people in government from increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes with our money.

 

[Greenbeard]

Pragmatism is why politicians get themselves in the messes they get into and can't explain their voting records. They run on their idealism then Washington teaches them they have to make make 'pragmatic' deals to get legislation done behind closed doors. Or they have to 'pragmatically' trade a vote, voting against their ideals to get something else they want passed.

I would hope that fully-functioning adults would've learned to play well with others and that they can't get their way entirely 100% of the time long before they hold elected office.

Believe it or not, with a population north of 300 million in this country, a wide range of perspectives are represented in Congress. Elected officials (like most people) have a responsibility to find ways to work productively with colleagues who almost certainly don't entirely share their worldview or ideology. Ron Paul's example of inflexible uselessness is not the model to follow, though I suppose a handful of people in that body have to play that role (as long as they keep bringing home the bacon and have decent constituent services, their constituents may even revel in the novelty of it).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional.

When did Ron Paul become a Federal judge?

Or when did he graduate law school, for that matter?

And it is not specifically laid out in the general welfare clause, nor under the specific enumerated powers....

Congress possesses unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. See: McCulloch v. Maryland

and amendment 10 says exactly what happens when a power is not specifically granted to the fed...

The Tenth Amendment says noting of the sort:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby

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...

Case law in support?

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

Ah, which means you have no case law in support.

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

Incorrect.

The doctrine of judicial review in the context of the Supreme Court’s interpretive authority is more than adequate to determine the meaning of the Constitution and determine the powers made available to the branches of government accordingly.

Every issue and controversy can not be addressed through the ‘amendment process’; indeed, the last thing we need to do is clutter the Constitution with ‘designer amendments’ rendering the Founding Document useless.

So Congress passes an Act and you think it's Constitutional?

All acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional, until such time as a Federal court says otherwise. See: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). and http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZO.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

No... it only proves that the government has overstepped what is specifically granted within the constitution... and that it will most probably continue to do this unless drastic change is made

No, it only means that like most everything in life, there is always some cult of peculiar people who take an extreme minority contrary view of the reality of the situation.

It's sad that you can't see what is so obvious to so many. It is undeniable that our government does more now and thus has more power than it ever has. It is just bazarr to me that liberals like yourself and jillian fight so hard to vest a seemingly unlimited amount of power to do whatever you deem is 'good' in central government. You have to be a complete moron to not understand the problem with, what on the face, look like compassionate, reasonable things for government to do. This country was founded by people fleeing the tyranny of governments. It is governments having too much power that have been historically shown to be the downfall of societies and the enemy of freedom, not it's citizens. You have to be blind to not see that it is better to err on the side of limiting what central government can do in order to prevent tyranny rather than simply allowing government to do whatever sounds good at the time. It is meant to be limited, not to prevent that which we can all agree is an overstep of power. It is meant to prevent the tyranny that arises as government seizes more power doing what seems compassionate and is propogated as being in the people's best interest. Which is why, despite what may initially sound compassionate, the central government should not be involved in such matters.

People whose line in the sand is keeping the Federal government out of education are daft, period.

Or healthcare for that matter.

Or food.

If nation's health, education, and sustenance are not important enough to be consider national concerns,

then what is?

 

[dblack]

People whose line in the sand is keeping the Federal government out of education are daft, period.

Or healthcare for that matter.

Or food.

If nation's health, education, and sustenance are not important enough to be consider national concerns,

then what is?

really? You'd want to see the feds in charge of our food supply too?

I assume it's a short list, but are there any aspects of our lives you'd want to preclude from government control?

 

[LibertyForAll]

Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional.

When did Ron Paul become a Federal judge?

Or when did he graduate law school, for that matter?

And it is not specifically laid out in the general welfare clause, nor under the specific enumerated powers....

Congress possesses unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. See: McCulloch v. Maryland


The Tenth Amendment says noting of the sort:





Case law in support?



Ah, which means you have no case law in support.

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

Incorrect.

The doctrine of judicial review in the context of the Supreme Court’s interpretive authority is more than adequate to determine the meaning of the Constitution and determine the powers made available to the branches of government accordingly.

Every issue and controversy can not be addressed through the ‘amendment process’; indeed, the last thing we need to do is clutter the Constitution with ‘designer amendments’ rendering the Founding Document useless.

So Congress passes an Act and you think it's Constitutional?

All acts of Congress are presumed Constitutional, until such time as a Federal court says otherwise. See: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). and UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Congress has power to incorporate a bank.

The Act of the 10th of April, 1816, ch. 44, to "incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States" is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution.

The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect
So now prove to me that government schools are legitimate, and within the scope of the constitution.