Would you favor Trump dismissing all Dept. of Education Employees, effectively shutting it down?

[martybegan]

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,,,

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.

then that leaves us with the constitution, which gives no authority for any involvement,,,

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.

thats a stretch at best,,,

and 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 there

I can understand an absolutist view on this, but it doesn't make sense.

A small Dept of Ed that establishes minimum requirements doesn't have any constitutional issues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is common, presently. A degree from an accredited out of state school is likely to be recognized at another accredited out of state school, but the transfer of classes is another story.

 

[progressive hunter]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers, nor the 4th for automobiles by this logic.

not true,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

except that there is no such thing as a living wage,,,

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.

then that leaves us with the constitution, which gives no authority for any involvement,,,

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.

thats a stretch at best,,,

and 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 there

I can understand an absolutist view on this, but it doesn't make sense.

A small Dept of Ed that establishes minimum requirements doesn't have any constitutional issues.

only from your view,,,from mine its very different,,,

 

[martybegan]

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.

My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.

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.

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 there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Minimal standards could be seen as a compact between the States, which is forbidden by the Constitution unless approved by commerce.

In the realm of education, state governments are market participants. It would be no different than industries a Stabley Shang minimum standards. I can tell you right now I do not favor government controlling industry standards for certain industries. That would be bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers, nor the 4th for automobiles by this logic.

not true,,,

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Baseline for what? What full faith and credit is one state required to give to another when it comes to education?

This is not like issuing a drivers license.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.

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.

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 there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

 

[martybegan]

Minimal standards could be seen as a compact between the States, which is forbidden by the Constitution unless approved by commerce.

In the realm of education, state governments are market participants. It would be no different than industries a Stabley Shang minimum standards. I can tell you right now I do not favor government controlling industry standards for certain industries. That would be bullshit.

Education is different, As all States offer it as a public service, and create their own standards even when education is provided privately.

Government is already involved at the State level, and since education and people can cross State lines with ease, and have the right to live in any State they want, having baseline standards to allow this makes sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers,

Non seq; my statement refers to the limited powers given to Congress, not the limitations placed on actions by the government by the constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no constitutional ban on the feds being involved, and several options to see it being acceptable.

I strongly disagree.

The constitution is clear that anything not enumerated as a federal power in the constitution is reserved to the states or the people.

 

[martybegan]

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.

My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.

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.

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 there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Congress in the Constitution only means the Federal Congress. State legislatures are not congress.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Except for the 14th Amendment, of course.

 

[martybegan]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers,

Non seq; my statement refers to the limited powers given to Congress, not the limitations placed on actions by the government by the constitution.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't work. Try to be consistent.

 

[martybegan]

There is no constitutional ban on the feds being involved, and several options to see it being acceptable.

I strongly disagree.

The constitution is clear that anything not enumerated as a federal power in the constitution is reserved to the states or the people.

I already stated some areas where it would be acceptable. You just don't agree.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Education is different, As all States offer it as a public service, and create their own standards even when education is provided privately.

Government is already involved at the State level, and since education and people can cross State lines with ease, and have the right to live in any State they want, having baseline standards to allow this makes sense.

The constitutional standards for full faith and credit for the constitutional scrutiny change when governments are market participants.

Having different standards does not change anyone's right of freedom of movement among the states.

It may change one's mind about whether or not to move to another state. If that's the basis, why let state have any laws that differ from other states?

 

[martybegan]

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Except for the 14th Amendment, of course.

Which can also be abused.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers,

Non seq; my statement refers to the limited powers given to Congress, not the limitations placed on actions by the government by the constitution.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't work. Try to be consistent.

I am, and fully - do I need to explain it better, or do you simply refuse to understand the difference?

 

[progressive hunter]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers, nor the 4th for automobiles by this logic.

not true,,,

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

what words arent there???computer and cars???thats a ridiculous POV,,unless youre saying they can ban computers and cars,,,which they can if they can get away with it

as for abortions ,,,well there is a part about life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and abortion takes all that away from a person