Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah, but once you start loosely applying the commerce clause, ANYTHING can be deemed regulation of interstate commerce, thereby preempting all state authority.I see it more as the ability for bare minimums to be equivalent between the States, setting a floor as such.
It has to do with commerce between the States, and the ability of people to move freely between the States, so I see this limited scope as part of the federal mandate.
That being said, the current laws on the books for this could probably be reduced by a factor of 100 to meet the requirements I listed above.
Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.If you allow people to attend educational facilities across state lines, there needs to be Standards. Unless congress allows States to enter into agreements between themselves, it's up to the fed to regulate this.
Conservatives don’t care about that.Who would administer Pell Grants?
If one can't afford to go to Disney World...Conservatives don’t care about that.
If one can’t afford to go to college, he simply doesn’t go.
Merge them. Then disband both at the same time. 2 birds...1 stone...havent heard much about this since it was announced,,, but since trump is a big government progressive I doubt he will get rid of any unconstitutional agency,,,
Trump wants to merge federal Education and Labor departments
Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.If you allow people to attend educational facilities across state lines, there needs to be Standards. Unless congress allows States to enter into agreements between themselves, it's up to the fed to regulate this.
If California can do it better than Mississippi, why force California to conform to standards that benefit Mississippi at California's expense? People will learn that their children will be better educated in California, which will force Mississippi to raise standards and compete.
Is it me, or has this argument become eerily similar to the minimum wage argument?
.
except that there is no such thing as a living wage,,,Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.If you allow people to attend educational facilities across state lines, there needs to be Standards. Unless congress allows States to enter into agreements between themselves, it's up to the fed to regulate this.
If California can do it better than Mississippi, why force California to conform to standards that benefit Mississippi at California's expense? People will learn that their children will be better educated in California, which will force Mississippi to raise standards and compete.
Is it me, or has this argument become eerily similar to the minimum wage argument?
.
An actual minimum wage, not a living wage. One can be in favor of one without the other.
The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
except that there is no such thing as a living wage,,,Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.If you allow people to attend educational facilities across state lines, there needs to be Standards. Unless congress allows States to enter into agreements between themselves, it's up to the fed to regulate this.
If California can do it better than Mississippi, why force California to conform to standards that benefit Mississippi at California's expense? People will learn that their children will be better educated in California, which will force Mississippi to raise standards and compete.
Is it me, or has this argument become eerily similar to the minimum wage argument?
.
An actual minimum wage, not a living wage. One can be in favor of one without the other.
The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
and all the dept of ed has done is brought down the education in this country,,,which is well documented
then that leaves us with the constitution, which gives no authority for any involvement,,,except that there is no such thing as a living wage,,,Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.If you allow people to attend educational facilities across state lines, there needs to be Standards. Unless congress allows States to enter into agreements between themselves, it's up to the fed to regulate this.
If California can do it better than Mississippi, why force California to conform to standards that benefit Mississippi at California's expense? People will learn that their children will be better educated in California, which will force Mississippi to raise standards and compete.
Is it me, or has this argument become eerily similar to the minimum wage argument?
.
An actual minimum wage, not a living wage. One can be in favor of one without the other.
The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
and all the dept of ed has done is brought down the education in this country,,,which is well documented
I didn't say there is a hard concept of a living wage, it is propaganda to escalate the minimum wage to buy votes.
Just because something is abused doesn't mean in a more controlled form it doesn't have a viable function.
My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
then that leaves us with the constitution, which gives no authority for any involvement,,,except that there is no such thing as a living wage,,,Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.If you allow people to attend educational facilities across state lines, there needs to be Standards. Unless congress allows States to enter into agreements between themselves, it's up to the fed to regulate this.
If California can do it better than Mississippi, why force California to conform to standards that benefit Mississippi at California's expense? People will learn that their children will be better educated in California, which will force Mississippi to raise standards and compete.
Is it me, or has this argument become eerily similar to the minimum wage argument?
.
An actual minimum wage, not a living wage. One can be in favor of one without the other.
The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
and all the dept of ed has done is brought down the education in this country,,,which is well documented
I didn't say there is a hard concept of a living wage, it is propaganda to escalate the minimum wage to buy votes.
Just because something is abused doesn't mean in a more controlled form it doesn't have a viable function.
My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
Why must the federal government establish minimum general requirements for schooling? Either I am is failing to see the need or you are failing to communicate it.
The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.
then that leaves us with the constitution, which gives no authority for any involvement,,,except that there is no such thing as a living wage,,,Slippery slope is only invalid if there is no evidence of slipping, just a claim that it "might" happen. We have PLENTY of evidence of government CONSTANTLY taking more power.
Why does there need to be a single standard? Can't the consumer decide? Can't the market decide.
If California can do it better than Mississippi, why force California to conform to standards that benefit Mississippi at California's expense? People will learn that their children will be better educated in California, which will force Mississippi to raise standards and compete.
Is it me, or has this argument become eerily similar to the minimum wage argument?
.
An actual minimum wage, not a living wage. One can be in favor of one without the other.
The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
and all the dept of ed has done is brought down the education in this country,,,which is well documented
I didn't say there is a hard concept of a living wage, it is propaganda to escalate the minimum wage to buy votes.
Just because something is abused doesn't mean in a more controlled form it doesn't have a viable function.
Minimal standards could be seen as a compact between the States, which is forbidden by the Constitution unless approved by commerce.
It also provides a federal baseline for full faith and credit of any educational documents issued by a State, to be recognized by other States.
There is no constitutional ban on the feds being involved, and several options to see it being acceptable.
the constitution as per the 10th amendment isnt about what they are banned from doing but what they are delegated/allowed to do,,and education isnt thereMy argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.
There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.
Why must the federal government establish minimum general requirements for schooling? Either I am is failing to see the need or you are failing to communicate it.
Lack of minimal standards would impact transfers of degrees as requirements between the States. It would allow States to reject diplomas from other States in objection to full faith and credit.
There is no prohibition in the constitution for it.
