See Bill Bennett vs Greg Abbott Common Core Debate Fox News Sunday
One of the primary arguments against common core is that the federal government has absolutely no authority to tax for, spend on, or meddle in State public school systems adopted under state constitutions, the exception being if a State adopts legislation which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, in which case the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment forbids such action and grants power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation to deal with such violations. And yet, in spite of our Constitution not granting power to the federal government to tax for, spend on or meddle in state public school systems, when a number of oppositions to common core were stated on FoxNews on Sunday, and Mr. Bennett was asked are they all wrong, Mr. Bennett declared in no uncertain terms “Yes they are all wrong”.
But the truth is, contrary to Mr. Bennett’s assertion, our federal Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to tax for, spend on, meddle in or regulate public school systems adopted under state constitutions, and the 10th Amendment actually forbids federal government involvement.
But let us now take a look at some historical facts which Mr. Bennett, who was head of the unconstitutional federal Department of Education from 1985 to 1988, may not be familiar with .
With respect to our federal Constitution and its delegated powers as applied to education we find Delegate Charles Pickney, on August 18th of the Convention of 1787, proposed a broad power "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences". But this proposal was rejected by the Convention in favor of a limited grant of power expressed in Article 1, Section 8, Cl.8, of the proposed constitution. The limited power, later agreed upon by ratification of our Constitution authorizes Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...” And how may this be done? The Constitution continues: "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It says nothing about meddling in or funding state public schools, or taxing and spending to promote common core standards. So where, Mr. Bennett, is the power granted to our federal government to tax for and promote Common Core in public school systems created under State Constitutions?
And if the above is not sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Bennett’s distain for our Constitution, let us recall the powerful words spoken by Representative Page before Congress on Feb., 7th, 1792:
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page
For related information concerning common core see: How is the federal government involved in the Common Core?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
One of the primary arguments against common core is that the federal government has absolutely no authority to tax for, spend on, or meddle in State public school systems adopted under state constitutions, the exception being if a State adopts legislation which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, in which case the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment forbids such action and grants power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation to deal with such violations. And yet, in spite of our Constitution not granting power to the federal government to tax for, spend on or meddle in state public school systems, when a number of oppositions to common core were stated on FoxNews on Sunday, and Mr. Bennett was asked are they all wrong, Mr. Bennett declared in no uncertain terms “Yes they are all wrong”.
But the truth is, contrary to Mr. Bennett’s assertion, our federal Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to tax for, spend on, meddle in or regulate public school systems adopted under state constitutions, and the 10th Amendment actually forbids federal government involvement.
But let us now take a look at some historical facts which Mr. Bennett, who was head of the unconstitutional federal Department of Education from 1985 to 1988, may not be familiar with .
With respect to our federal Constitution and its delegated powers as applied to education we find Delegate Charles Pickney, on August 18th of the Convention of 1787, proposed a broad power "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences". But this proposal was rejected by the Convention in favor of a limited grant of power expressed in Article 1, Section 8, Cl.8, of the proposed constitution. The limited power, later agreed upon by ratification of our Constitution authorizes Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...” And how may this be done? The Constitution continues: "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It says nothing about meddling in or funding state public schools, or taxing and spending to promote common core standards. So where, Mr. Bennett, is the power granted to our federal government to tax for and promote Common Core in public school systems created under State Constitutions?
And if the above is not sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Bennett’s distain for our Constitution, let us recall the powerful words spoken by Representative Page before Congress on Feb., 7th, 1792:
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page
For related information concerning common core see: How is the federal government involved in the Common Core?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
