Federal Governments role in Education

[tpahl]

The president took an oath to protect the Constitution. In his own partys platform, the following is said...

We recognize that under the American constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation

source: http://www.gop.com/About/PartyPlatform/default.aspx?Section=3

In his own party's agenda however the following is said...

President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 48% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001

source: http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=3

Given that the president recognized that the federal government has no constitutional authority to do anything in regards to education and has not only kept the Department of Education, but is bragging that he has increased its funding by nearly 50% in just 4 years, he should at the very least not be re-elected by anyone that wants the smaller government that Bush promised, and maybe even impeached.

Travis Pahl

 

[5stringJeff]

Travis, you'll find that many Republicans do not support the bloating of the Dept. of Education, and are upset about Bush's initiatives to enlarge that department. But I am still voting for Bush because he is the only candidate that will fight the WOT the way it should be fought. I doubt the Libertarian candidate will have the gumption to fight a war that must be fought.
That said, I agree, the Dept. of Education should be abolished, and taxes cut by the very amount that the DOE is eating up.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Travis, you'll find that many Republicans do not support the bloating of the Dept. of Education, and are upset about Bush's initiatives to enlarge that department. But I am still voting for Bush because he is the only candidate that will fight the WOT the way it should be fought. I doubt the Libertarian candidate will have the gumption to fight a war that must be fought.
That said, I agree, the Dept. of Education should be abolished, and taxes cut by the very amount that the DOE is eating up.

I agree Jeff. DOE and the stands on illegal immigration and tariffs, none of these I agree with. Yet his stand on WOT and defense, yeah. Tax breaks have been good, not enough, but good. He's got my support.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Travis, you'll find that many Republicans do not support the bloating of the Dept. of Education, and are upset about Bush's initiatives to enlarge that department. But I am still voting for Bush because he is the only candidate that will fight the WOT the way it should be fought. I doubt the Libertarian candidate will have the gumption to fight a war that must be fought.
That said, I agree, the Dept. of Education should be abolished, and taxes cut by the very amount that the DOE is eating up.

The fact that he is increasing the department is not the critical thing to realize. It is the fact that he is KNOWINGLY violating the consitution that is most troublesome.

As important as you think the war on Terror may be, a president violating the constitution knowingly is MUCH worse.

Travis

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by tpahl
The fact that he is increasing the department is not the critical thing to realize. It is the fact that he is KNOWINGLY violating the consitution that is most troublesome.

As important as you think the war on Terror may be, a president violating the constitution knowingly is MUCH worse.

Travis

OK, fine. He and every President since Carter has done so - as has every member of Congress since 1978. I agree it should be abolished. But abolishing the DOE is pretty low on my priority list compared to fighting people who want to destroy America.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
OK, fine. He and every President since Carter has done so - as has every member of Congress since 1978. I agree it should be abolished. But abolishing the DOE is pretty low on my priority list compared to fighting people who want to destroy America.

Depends on what you think is america. I happen to think that destroying the constitution is much worse than destroying a couple buildings. In the long run ignoring the consititution will kill far more people.

And Badnarik is going to fight terrorism as well. He would however do it by following the constitution in regards to war as well. Congress would have to declare war as the constitution requires. I know your excuse again will be that all the other presidents since FDR have ignored that part fo the constitution as well.

My point is that we need to stop voting for people that are not willing to really defend the constitution.

Travis

 

[William Joyce]

Why, T, haven't read the NEW Constitution? It plainly states, in Article I:

"The federal government shall be sovereign, with all the powers necessary to do whatever it deems necessary, anytime, anywhere, but especially when it comes to that matter of obvious need for national, not local, control, education, including the determination of the length of pencils."

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Why, T, haven't read the NEW Constitution? It plainly states, in Article I:

"The federal government shall be sovereign, with all the powers necessary to do whatever it deems necessary, anytime, anywhere, but especially when it comes to that matter of obvious need for national, not local, control, education, including the determination of the length of pencils."

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Well, that all depends on what your definition of "is" is....