Ron Paul says HeadStart is unconstiutional

[madasheck]

This is one area I agree fully with Ron Paul. There is no basis in the Constitution for social engineering of any kind, and the original intent of the Founders was that the general welfare would benefit all, rich and poor alike, equally with no favors dispensed to any particular group. Head Start and ALL similar programs are unConstitutional.

Good God, will this insanity please stop? Since when is education social engineering? It isn't and never has been. Stop bending this stuff to fit an agenda. Head Start is not unconstitutional. It has done so much good that it's crazy to even discuss alternatives. But then, that seems to be conservative thinking.

 

[rdean]

Head Start is unconstitutional. The general welfare clause applies to the general welfare of states. It doesn't mean everyone gets a check.

Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation.

And how is helping kids a bad thing? I'd also say "Such ignorance is going to be the downfall of this nation," but not for the reason you're implying.

Clearly, once born, Republicans lose interest.

 

[Vel]

This is one area I agree fully with Ron Paul. There is no basis in the Constitution for social engineering of any kind, and the original intent of the Founders was that the general welfare would benefit all, rich and poor alike, equally with no favors dispensed to any particular group. Head Start and ALL similar programs are unConstitutional.

Good God, will this insanity please stop? Since when is education social engineering? It isn't and never has been. Stop bending this stuff to fit an agenda. Head Start is not unconstitutional. It has done so much good that it's crazy to even discuss alternatives. But then, that seems to be conservative thinking.

Please elaborate on the "so much good", as even the Obama administration had to admit that there seem to be no lasting benefits.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is one area I agree fully with Ron Paul. There is no basis in the Constitution for social engineering of any kind, and the original intent of the Founders was that the general welfare would benefit all, rich and poor alike, equally with no favors dispensed to any particular group. Head Start and ALL similar programs are unConstitutional.

Good God, will this insanity please stop? Since when is education social engineering? It isn't and never has been. Stop bending this stuff to fit an agenda. Head Start is not unconstitutional. It has done so much good that it's crazy to even discuss alternatives. But then, that seems to be conservative thinking.

You not only didn't get the point I was making but you apparently don't read well either. At $7,000 cost per kid, the government itself admits it is NOT educating anybody. It IS social engineering when it is targeted at a particular group of kids with the stated attempt to change them in some manner. We could spend a small fraction of that $7,000 and hire a tutor to work one on one with those same kids for a few hours a week and accomplish a whole bunch more. Or better yet, start making it socially unacceptable for parents to neglect their kids educationally and every other way. That wouldn't cost us anything,.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals know it's unconstitutional. They think it's such a good program and wastes so much money, that we should ignore it being unconstitutional.

 

[dblack]

Liberals know it's unconstitutional. They think it's such a good program and wastes so much money, that we should ignore it being unconstitutional.

I wouldn't necessarily say that they "know" it's unconstitutional. But I think it's fair to say that they don't really care whether it's constitutional or not, and are willing to see the Constitution re-interpreted, or outright ignored, in order to achieve their ends.

And to be fair, the same can be send of most "conservatives".

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul is a character and a bit of a curmudgeon. He is a complete ideologue and seems not to have a pragmatic bone in his head.

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TAX "A" IN ORDER TO HELP "B" - NONE.

You stupid parasitic retard.

.

 

[madasheck]

This is one area I agree fully with Ron Paul. There is no basis in the Constitution for social engineering of any kind, and the original intent of the Founders was that the general welfare would benefit all, rich and poor alike, equally with no favors dispensed to any particular group. Head Start and ALL similar programs are unConstitutional.

Good God, will this insanity please stop? Since when is education social engineering? It isn't and never has been. Stop bending this stuff to fit an agenda. Head Start is not unconstitutional. It has done so much good that it's crazy to even discuss alternatives. But then, that seems to be conservative thinking.

Please elaborate on the "so much good", as even the Obama administration had to admit that there seem to be no lasting benefits.

Where did you get that conclusion?

 

[Avatar4321]

I have no problem stating when Paul is wrong. He isn't wrong here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People whose line in the sand is keeping the Federal government out of education are daft, period.

Or healthcare for that matter.

Or food.

If nation's health, education, and sustenance are not important enough to be consider national concerns,

then what is?

really? You'd want to see the feds in charge of our food supply too?

I assume it's a short list, but are there any aspects of our lives you'd want to preclude from government control?

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?

 

[Greenbeard]

It IS social engineering when it is targeted at a particular group of kids with the stated attempt to change them in some manner.

Or better yet, start making it socially unacceptable for parents to neglect their kids educationally and every other way. That wouldn't cost us anything,.

That's your alternative to "social engineering"?

 

[Bern80]

Pragmatism is why politicians get themselves in the messes they get into and can't explain their voting records. They run on their idealism then Washington teaches them they have to make make 'pragmatic' deals to get legislation done behind closed doors. Or they have to 'pragmatically' trade a vote, voting against their ideals to get something else they want passed.

I would hope that fully-functioning adults would've learned to play well with others and that they can't get their way entirely 100% of the time long before they hold elected office.

Believe it or not, with a population north of 300 million in this country, a wide range of perspectives are represented in Congress. Elected officials (like most people) have a responsibility to find ways to work productively with colleagues who almost certainly don't entirely share their worldview or ideology. Ron Paul's example of inflexible uselessness is not the model to follow, though I suppose a handful of people in that body have to play that role (as long as they keep bringing home the bacon and have decent constituent services, their constituents may even revel in the novelty of it).

If you had any poli-sci education you may have learned that their are a couple of models by whach elected officials can represent people. One is as a delegate. A delegate is more in line with direct represenation of one's own beliefs. A delegate is essentially a voice box of the people. They do what their constituents tell them to do, often regardless of their own beliefs. The other form of representation is as a trustee. In this type of representative the constituency vests it's trust in the representative to do what is in their best interests. You may have guessed that I side on the trustee model. The reason is because there's what people want and then there's what's best. Doing what people want and saying what they want to here is easy. Anyone can do that. It's human nature. It's easier to simply fulfill our desires than it is to do what is really going to be best for us.

That's why I don't believe pragmatism is always the way to go in Washington and it is what has gotten us into trouble. Promising everyone that they'll do for them what they want once elected is how politicians get elected. It is why so many people from individuals to our government so poorly mismanage their finances. They simply do what they want rather than what is best. Some people are starting to see the problem with that now that we are 14 trillion in debt as a result. Any chance you're gonna wake up any time soon?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

People whose line in the sand is keeping the Federal government out of education are daft, period.

Or healthcare for that matter.

Or food.

If nation's health, education, and sustenance are not important enough to be consider national concerns,

then what is?

really? You'd want to see the feds in charge of our food supply too?

I assume it's a short list, but are there any aspects of our lives you'd want to preclude from government control?

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.

 

[Vel]

Good God, will this insanity please stop? Since when is education social engineering? It isn't and never has been. Stop bending this stuff to fit an agenda. Head Start is not unconstitutional. It has done so much good that it's crazy to even discuss alternatives. But then, that seems to be conservative thinking.

Please elaborate on the "so much good", as even the Obama administration had to admit that there seem to be no lasting benefits.

Where did you get that conclusion?

From the link I posted on page 1 of this thread. Here it is again.

Obama Administration Report Shows Head Start Ineffective

 

[Bern80]

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?

The Tenth Amendment says noting of the sort:

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 ******* 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.

Case law in support?



Ah, which means you have no case law in support.

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.

 

[Bern80]

really? You'd want to see the feds in charge of our food supply too?

I assume it's a short list, but are there any aspects of our lives you'd want to preclude from government control?

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.

We basically live on just corn. Even our beef is basically corn.

 

[Bern80]

This is one area I agree fully with Ron Paul. There is no basis in the Constitution for social engineering of any kind, and the original intent of the Founders was that the general welfare would benefit all, rich and poor alike, equally with no favors dispensed to any particular group. Head Start and ALL similar programs are unConstitutional.

Good God, will this insanity please stop? Since when is education social engineering? It isn't and never has been. Stop bending this stuff to fit an agenda. Head Start is not unconstitutional. It has done so much good that it's crazy to even discuss alternatives. But then, that seems to be conservative thinking.

And that is what libs don't get. What is good (yes head start has done gerat things) and what is costitutional are two different things. You dont sweep what the constitution under the rug just because something seems good and compassionate at the time. In fact the constitution and power of the federal government were set up to prevent exactly that from happening. That is where tyranny ultimately comes from. It comes from the things that at first seemed like compassionate things for government to do and slowly growing it's power as a result. You can't always get what you want, as the song goes, nor should you for good reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

really? You'd want to see the feds in charge of our food supply too?

I assume it's a short list, but are there any aspects of our lives you'd want to preclude from government control?

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...?

 

[editec]

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 **** you're talking about.


Seriously, kid, go read ******* book.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The Tenth Amendment says noting of the sort:

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 ******* 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.

Case law in support?



Ah, which means you have no case law in support.

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?