Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional

You want the federal government out of the food safety business? Why? How will it make our lives better to go back to the days when foods weren't labeled, or when meat packers weren't inspected?

Seriously, what interests would be served?

Watch Food Inc. I guarantee that you won't care for the FDA anymore. Even people I've worked with that are from different parts of the world say that our food is horrible. We don't eat food in America, we eat processed food substitutes.

I personally stopped caring about the FDA when they allowed beef to be imported from Canada, this while Canada was found to have beef tainted with mad cow disease.

So what you're saying is that the federal government doesn't regulate food ENOUGH...?

Too much or too little enforcement is a false argument. The argument should be good vs bad enforcement. The FDA currently does a very bad job.
 
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.


Suggesing that the federal government "took over" education informs us that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Seriously, kid, go read fucking book.

This country existed without a dept. of education for 78 years or a third of it's existence. So yes, as a point of fact at some point the fed did adopt a role in education where once it had not. Originally in 1867. It would not talk a more predominant role until the 50's, then an even larger one in 1971.
 
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.


Suggesing that the federal government "took over" education informs us that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Seriously, kid, go read fucking book.

When a central federal agency can dictate what every district in the national has to abide by, I would call that taking over.
 
Social engineering is when you pass a federal law that precisely defines what is or isn't marriage.

:lol:

Which they shouldn't do, nor is part of the discussion. Try a less obviously transparent and cowardly and irrelevent argument next time.
 
When did Ron Paul become a Federal judge?

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

Do you believe the writers of the constitution intended for ONLY judges and and people who go to school to be constitutinal scholars to understand what their rights are and what the government can do?





It says that whatever powers are not reserved to the federal government are reserverd to the states. And providing a federally run education system is not one of the federal government's powers.....to which you will of course say 'but, the general welfar clause'......to which I say THINK you fucking idiot. Why have a 10 the ammendment if basically the federal government as power over everything based on your absurdely broad interpreation of the the general welfare clause? The only LOGICAL conclusion one can make is that there are power and areas of authority that the federal government were simply not meant to have.



I thought the process to changing the constitution was the ammendment process. Where in the constitution is it stated that it can also be changed via judges rulings? There is a distinction you libs fail to grasp when using your infantile 'but case law is the real holy grail' excuses. Yes judges are the people meant to determine what is constitutional and what isn't. We trust them to correctly do so. That doesn't mean they do and doesn't mean their rulings supercede the constitution. Again let's apply a shred of common sense to the debate. If we could trust that all judges would always correctly interpret the constitution there wouldn't be the political fights over judicial appointments that there are. If they always got it right there wouldn't be some judges that say Obamacare is constitutional and others who say it isn't. If they always get it right they all should have ruled the same way. This is why case law can not and should not be replied upon. It is better to default to what the constitution actually says rather than what case law says the constitution says about what is constitutional and what isn't.


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.

Which is why we have a democratic republic of states. Those issues that can't be addressed by the federal government CAN be addressed by the state governments. Things like how best to educate young people. The framers saw the folly in a single centralized government controlling everything. You libs apparently don't. That state governments and having their own autonomy is as equally important to our governmening system as the fed doesn't even register to you libs. Having a few different ways of doing things gives us all a better chance of finding the best way of doing something than having just one authority.

Focusing on education for a second. Those of us who agree with Paul that the dept of education is unconstitutional aren't doing so simply to be disagreeable and/or anal about following the constitution. The question is how do we best educate the country's young people. It is ridiculous to think that the federal government can accurately assess the learning needs and the pace and style by which all students across the country learn and set a standard that will work for all of them. Education is something best micro managed. You let the states do what works best for them and the states districts what's best for the them and the districts individual school do what works best for them. I believe proper eduaction is as important as the next person to the point that I believe you do whatever it takes to get the job done. If it means teching johnny differently than jimmy so they both wind up at the same level by 12th grade then that's what you do. A single centralized federal dept. can't do that for millions of students. Forget whether you think it's constitutional or not and ask whether or not the federal government is the best way to get the job done.

Why then should states even be involved in education? Why should Albany have the right to dictate to a school district in Monroe County how to educate its children?

Why not get rid of compulsory education altogether, and transfer the right to decide whether or not kids have to go to school to the parents?

All very good questions. Keep that faint hint of light bulb going off on top of your head and see if you can objectively answer why any of those things would be bad and why it should be any of the federal government's business. The question about whether a parent should be allowed to not have their children educated I honestly find rather intriguing.
 
Last edited:
the point of the general welfare clause was to let government do things that were NOT spelled out.

Actually, you're both wrong.

There is no "general welfare clause." The only place the words appear, except in the Preamble (which has no legal force), is as part of the taxation clause of Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . ."

Now, what does this mean? First, there is no general power of Congress to do whatever it wants to provide for the general welfare. This is a modifier on the power to TAX ONLY (and, by implication, on the power to spend the revenues gathered by taxation).

Second, what does the phrase "general welfare of the United States" mean? It means the welfare of the whole country, not of one particular state (which is the responsibility of that state's government).

Now, it still happens that this covers Head Start, which amounts to nothing more than spending money, and that serves the welfare of the whole country. But it isn't true that the clause is there to allow the government to do things that aren't spelled out, or that it changes the fact that we have a federal system with enumerated federal powers.
 
the point of the general welfare clause was to let government do things that were NOT spelled out.

Actually, you're both wrong.

There is no "general welfare clause." The only place the words appear, except in the Preamble (which has no legal force), is as part of the taxation clause of Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . ."

Now, what does this mean? First, there is no general power of Congress to do whatever it wants to provide for the general welfare. This is a modifier on the power to TAX ONLY (and, by implication, on the power to spend the revenues gathered by taxation).

Second, what does the phrase "general welfare of the United States" mean? It means the welfare of the whole country, not of one particular state (which is the responsibility of that state's government).

This interpretation still makes no sense to me. There's no need to imagine an 'implied' power to spend. The power to spend is included in the 'necessary and proper' clause, which grants government the power to take actions required to perform its explicitly enumerated powers and responsibilities. That's where the federal government gets it's power to spend. That's an important distinction, because there it is limited in scope. There is no general power for government to spend money one whatever might be considered 'for the general welfare'.

The power to tax is simply that, the power to raise funds. The qualifiers indicate general limitations on the power to tax. It's telling us it the government can't just tax us to fill up it's coffers, or to benefit an elite minority. The sophistry justifying, from the general welfare clause, an implied general power that essentially makes the enumeration of any other powers pointless is laughable. Unfortunately, according to C Clayton's precious 'case law', such nonsense is the law of the land. Combined with the commerce clause, it pretty much annihilates meaningful limitations on federal power.
 
Social engineering is when you pass a federal law that precisely defines what is or isn't marriage.

:lol:

Yep. A great mass of what both Democrats and Republicans seek from government is social engineering. Seems people never really tire of trying to force their values on others.
 
It's quite stunning that the Right can believe that defending South Korea from North Korea is a vital national interest,

but getting our young people as well educated as South Korea's kids isn't.
 
It's quite stunning that the Right can believe that defending South Korea from North Korea is a vital national interest,

but getting our young people as well educated as South Korea's kids isn't.

How about we assign our military the goal of defending our own country, and educate our own kids as we see fit?
 
This interpretation still makes no sense to me. There's no need to imagine an 'implied' power to spend. The power to spend is included in the 'necessary and proper' clause, which grants government the power to take actions required to perform its explicitly enumerated powers and responsibilities.

Let's take a look at that final enumerated power in specific.

"[The Congress shall have the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is not referring to spending money, but to making laws. An example of a "necessary and proper" law not specifically spelled out as it relates to the first clause is the setting of criminal penalties for tax evasion. Nowhere is the government specifically granted that power (and its powers as regards criminal law are quite tightly bound), but the power to lay and collect taxes is pretty useless without enforcement, so that's a necessary and proper law.

The implication of a spending power is there in the language, for a very simple reason. The government is empowered to lay and collect taxes, not just because it feels like it, but "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." But laying and collecting taxes won't do any of those things unless it spends the money. So there must be an implied power to spend the monies collected in taxation (or borrowed according to the second enumerated power), assuming those words are to mean anything at all.

That's the clear and straightforward meaning of the language of the first enumerated power. If it doesn't mean that, then the words have no business being there. The power could simply read as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

That language, shorn of the debts/defense/welfare business, says what you are claiming the power says. Then if you want to find out what the government can spend the money on, you have to refer to the other enumerated powers and find that it can regulate commerce, coin money, build an army and navy, etc.

There is simply no evidence, except for President Madison's excuse for vetoing a bill to support canal-building or some such, that the power to tax and spend is not a distinct power from all the others, and since Madison himself changed his tune after the War of 1812 and started embracing a broader interpretation, for example signing a bill to re-authorize the Bank of the United States, in the interest of not having our butts kicked again the next time we took on some overseas power -- well, there you go.

That this interpretation of the first clause renders the other clauses unnecessary is simply untrue. All of them authorize actions beyond spending money. None of those functions can be performed simply by taxing and spending. The separate authorization is needed.
 
This interpretation still makes no sense to me. There's no need to imagine an 'implied' power to spend. The power to spend is included in the 'necessary and proper' clause, which grants government the power to take actions required to perform its explicitly enumerated powers and responsibilities.

Let's take a look at that final enumerated power in specific.

"[The Congress shall have the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is not referring to spending money, but to making laws. An example of a "necessary and proper" law not specifically spelled out as it relates to the first clause is the setting of criminal penalties for tax evasion. Nowhere is the government specifically granted that power (and its powers as regards criminal law are quite tightly bound), but the power to lay and collect taxes is pretty useless without enforcement, so that's a necessary and proper law.

The implication of a spending power is there in the language, for a very simple reason. The government is empowered to lay and collect taxes, not just because it feels like it, but "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." But laying and collecting taxes won't do any of those things unless it spends the money. So there must be an implied power to spend the monies collected in taxation (or borrowed according to the second enumerated power), assuming those words are to mean anything at all.

That's the clear and straightforward meaning of the language of the first enumerated power. If it doesn't mean that, then the words have no business being there. The power could simply read as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

That language, shorn of the debts/defense/welfare business, says what you are claiming the power says. Then if you want to find out what the government can spend the money on, you have to refer to the other enumerated powers and find that it can regulate commerce, coin money, build an army and navy, etc.

There is simply no evidence, except for President Madison's excuse for vetoing a bill to support canal-building or some such, that the power to tax and spend is not a distinct power from all the others, and since Madison himself changed his tune after the War of 1812 and started embracing a broader interpretation, for example signing a bill to re-authorize the Bank of the United States, in the interest of not having our butts kicked again the next time we took on some overseas power -- well, there you go.

That this interpretation of the first clause renders the other clauses unnecessary is simply untrue. All of them authorize actions beyond spending money. None of those functions can be performed simply by taxing and spending. The separate authorization is needed.

Indeed in order to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups), and secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, some government regulation is essential and it requires some money to do the constitutional functions of government. But the Founders and all administrations that followed the first one up to Teddy Roosevelt religiously followed the intent and spirit of the Constitution to do no more than that.

Once Teddy started the snowball of government meddling, interference, and charity rolling, however, it has gathered mass, steam, and speed ever since. At first it was of such a small scale that it didin't seem to be a problem. But by the Seventies, it was beginning to do damage and now is crushing the economy. If we don't slow and down, stop it, and begin dismantling it, it will destroy the Constitution the Founders gave us.
 
It's quite stunning that the Right can believe that defending South Korea from North Korea is a vital national interest,

but getting our young people as well educated as South Korea's kids isn't.

How about we assign our military the goal of defending our own country, and educate our own kids as we see fit?

Sounds like a great idea to me.
 
Y'all are crazy...everyone wants to cut spending but no one wants to tell us where. Foreign policy needs to start as well as this headstart crap. This program is a free babysitting program for most kids now a days.

Parents who are either too lazy or too busy to take care of their kid, usually the first seeing as how this program does so well in the south.

Regardless it's clear there is no evidence this program has done anything except make our education system worse. We've only been getting dumber overall since the creation of programs such as these, look at our ranking in education. Obviously more money does not equal a better education, when are you idiots gonna get that?

Get off your high horses, get your heads out of your asses and look at the facts, we spend the most on education yet we're ranked near the bottom compared to other countries in education.

There's gotta be something going on...? Perhaps, it could be that education has more to do with the morality of this society and the parents and kids than any fucking dollar you spend on that shiny new projector or this crap.

Regardless if this was to be done, it should be done at a state level (which RP wouldn't oppose) NOT A FEDERAL LEVEL. Which is what RP opposes.
 
Y'all are crazy...everyone wants to cut spending but no one wants to tell us where. Foreign policy needs to start as well as this headstart crap. This program is a free babysitting program for most kids now a days.

Parents who are either too lazy or too busy to take care of their kid, usually the first seeing as how this program does so well in the south.

Regardless it's clear there is no evidence this program has done anything except make our education system worse. We've only been getting dumber overall since the creation of programs such as these, look at our ranking in education. Obviously more money does not equal a better education, when are you idiots gonna get that?

Get off your high horses, get your heads out of your asses and look at the facts, we spend the most on education yet we're ranked near the bottom compared to other countries in education.

There's gotta be something going on...? Perhaps, it could be that education has more to do with the morality of this society and the parents and kids than any fucking dollar you spend on that shiny new projector or this crap.

Regardless if this was to be done, it should be done at a state level (which RP wouldn't oppose) NOT A FEDERAL LEVEL. Which is what RP opposes.

A LOT of us are saying where. That has been the foundation of the Tea Party movement. We are being ignored by the government and the Left however.

Actually the only thing we need to do to fix the system is a Constitutional amendment making it illegal for the federal government to dispense any form of charity or benevolence to anybody unless it is equally distributed to all regardless of political or socioeconomic standing, plus all government contracts would have to be distributed as equally as possible per capita across the country with contracts awarded to the lowest qualified bidder regardless of whether they were union or not. AND, institute a rule that elected officials and those in government would pay into their own 401K and health plans, the taxpayer would not be required to pay into those, and they would not continue to be funded once the person retires.

That would pretty much fix the system, restore fiscal accountability and integrity, eliminate 99% of the graft and corruption in the federal government and also roll back the entitlement mentality among those who have been made dependent on the government. AND, it would go a long way to attracting true public servants again instead of career politicians whose primary objective is to become rich and famous on the taxpayer's dime.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top