Trump prepares EO to close down the unconstitutional federal department of education

[Moonglow]

It is being funded is a misappropriation of federal revenue. The President has taken an oath to support the Constitution.

AI Overview
Learn more

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects students from discrimination in public schools and provides the basis for the Department of Education.

Explanation

• Equal protection clause
  The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause requires that states provide equal access to public schools. This clause was used in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case to declare that separate schools for Black and white students were unconstitutional.
  
  
• Due process clause
  The 14th Amendment's due process clause protects students from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
  
  
• Incorporation
  The 14th Amendment allows other constitutional rights to be applied to the states, such as the First Amendment's right to free speech.
  

The Department of Education (ED) was established by Congress in 1980. The ED's mission is to promote educational excellence and ensure equal access to education for all.

 

[Moonglow]

I agree it needs congressional action, but the dep of education needs to go. It's redundant and stifles innovation in education. Each state has their own dep of education already.

Most of the money going into the Department of Education helps people pay for school through loans and grants, fellowships, brotherhoods, and scholarships.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You believe the intent was to allow people to illegally come into the country to have babies that are American citizens? Boy are you stupid.

So, we assume that the 2A was only for guns that existed in 1789? That freedom of speech was for only for language that was spoken in 1789? That the third amendment is only relevant to houses that existed in 1789?

And you have the ******* audacity to insult me.

 

[Moonglow]

Of course, wealthy ***** want to get rid of a government program that helps poor people attain a degree to earn more.

 

[Scoutster]

Democrat politicians don’t get it, they could win on this as well. But Trump Derangement Syndrome is killing them. No moderate Republican, democrat and no independent is buying into this bullshit! The only people concerned about this are ******* pervert liberals protecting predators preying on our own.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You believe the intent was to allow people to illegally come into the country to have babies that are American citizens? Boy are you stupid.

The intent is that babies born here, if not the children of diplomats, are citizens. Period.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Most of the money going into the Department of Education helps people pay for school through loans and grants, fellowships, brotherhoods, and scholarships.

OK, and so the money that is going into it can be kept by the states to fund their own grant programs, states, if they so desire, can increase taxes to help fund their individual departments of education, and still award tuition assistance to students.

 

[scruffy]

White House preparing executive order to abolish the Education Department

President Donald Trump promised for years to abolish the department — which he can't do without congressional approval.

www.nbcnews.com

The truth is, there is no provision listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, [Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes] allowing for a federal “Department of Education”


In fact, prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, the People of Maryland delegated the power for a state funded and regulated educational system to their state elected officials, and not to a national governing power --- the wording being as follows:



“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”


The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic terms:

“the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”


In fact, under Art. 3 of Maryland’s Constitution, the command is for local regulation and funding of education as opposed to a federally funded and regulated public school system!

The Maryland Constitution also states:


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.”

This very provision of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States by their ratification of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States!

Now, with respect to our federal Constitution and its delegated powers, upon researching the record of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we find Delegate Charles Pickney, on August 18th, 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 what is authorized to accomplish this? by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The fact is, the federal Department of Education and its current functions are in defiance of the defined and limited powers granted to Congress. And every time a member of Congress votes to fund this agency they are committing a fraud upon the people of the United States and are usurping a power not granted!

So, why are members of Congress funding this rouge agency?

All largely irrelevant.

DOE was established by Congress, by the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, which Jimmy Carter signed into law.

"I" believe, it would take an act of Congress to eliminate it.

SCOTUS may see things differently. We will find out if President Trump presses forward with this

 

[WorldWatcher]

All largely irrelevant.

DOE was established by Congress, by the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, which Jimmy Carter signed into law.

"I" believe, it would take an act of Congress to eliminate it.

SCOTUS may see things differently. We will find out if President Trump presses forward with this

Partially true. There has been Federal invovlement with education for much longer than since 1979.

Proior to that there was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Prior to tha there was the Department of Education and Welfare.

WW

 

[SweetTea]

So, we assume that the 2A was only for guns that existed in 1789? That freedom of speech was for only for language that was spoken in 1789? That the third amendment is only relevant to houses that existed in 1789?

And you have the ******* audacity to insult me.

Illogical, as each of these have been interpreted over the years with restrictions and limitations added.

The 2nd Amendment was to allow people to keep and bear arms, but we have implemented several regulations over the years that subvert that right to some extent based on the weapons available today.

The 1st Amendment states ”Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech was not limited in any way or explained in the Bill of Rights. Since that time, many limitations on the freedom of speech have been passed. In the early 20th century, for example, defamation, plagiarism, etc., are not protected.

I have no idea what your point about the 3rd Amendment is.

My point is that in the case of the 14th, further clarification is needed. Clearly, “illegal alien” wasn’t a thing back then. Yes, it needs to be revisited. The last time was was in 1798. Circumstances have changed significantly in the last 200+ years and problems not envisioned by the authors have arisen.

 

[Frankenstein]

The Supreme Court won't rule in Trump's favor either.

Bet! it is a waste of taxpayer dollars!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Illogical, as each of these have been interpreted over the years with restrictions and limitations added.

The 2nd Amendment was to allow people to keep and bear arms, but we have implemented several regulations over the years that subvert that right to some extent based on the weapons available today.

The 1st Amendment states ”Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech was not limited in any way or explained in the Bill of Rights. Since that time, many limitations on the freedom of speech have been passed. In the early 20th century, for example, defamation, plagiarism, etc., are not protected.

I have no idea what your point about the 3rd Amendment is.

My point is that in the case of the 14th, further clarification is needed. Clearly, “illegal alien” wasn’t a thing back then. Yes, it needs to be revisited. The last time was was in 1798. Circumstances have changed significantly in the last 200+ years and problems not envisioned by the authors have arisen.

The court knew what 'illegal aliens' were back then. The term had not been coined. They knew that offspring of anyone who was not the scion of a foreign diplomat, or indigenous Americans was born a citizen.

That is not going to change.

 

[SweetTea]

The court knew what 'illegal aliens' were back then. The term had not been coined. They knew that offspring of anyone who was not the scion of a foreign diplomat, or indigenous Americans was born a citizen.

That is not going to change.

Do you think they envisioned an influx like we have now? Again, times have changed and this needs to be revisited and even possibly amended.

 

[hadit]

When are any republicans gonna grow a pair and closedown the unconstitutional president?

I'm sure if one ever pops up, they'll do something about it. Thank goodness we don't have one now, that would be bad.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Do you think they envisioned an influx like we have now? Again, times have changed and this needs to be revisited and even possibly amended.

The answer is better immigration control, and Trump is dedicated to that.

We don't need to eliminate birthright status.

 

[SweetTea]

The answer is better immigration control, and Trump is dedicated to that.

We don't need to eliminate birthright status.

Why not? In what scenario, going forward, do you believe birthright citizenship makes sense? We already exclude children born of diplomats. It is already limited. Why would we want someone to be able to skirt the system by sneaking over the border and having a baby or even travel to the US on vacation and having a baby? That makes no sense. Maybe we don’t allow pregnant women to come into the country? That seems ridiculous.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why not? In what scenario, going forward, do you believe birthright citizenship makes sense? We already exclude children born of diplomats. It is already limited. Why would we want someone to be able to skirt the system by sneaking over the border and having a baby or even travel to the US on vacation and having a baby? That makes no sense. Maybe we don’t allow pregnant women to come into the country? That seems ridiculous.

Why change when it is not needed.

 

[DGS49]

How did a thread about the Department of Education devolve into YET ANOTHER pointless thread about birthright citizenship?

 

[Lisa558]

Congress established the Dept of Education in the 1970's and I don't think Trump has the authority to abolish it. But I'm pretty sure I remember that was on the Republican Party platform and a GOP controlled House and Senate certainly has the power to abolish it.

Education has declined so much since the 1970's, I suspect even a few Democrats might agree the Dept of Education has accomplished little or nothing to promote education and possibly has even hindered it.

This is the smallest of cabinet level departments with 4400 employees, but it should save us at least $79 billion if Congress does abolish it.

The money is secondary. We will return the focus of education to academics - rather than all the woke nonsense - and prepare the next generation to lead our country forward and contribute positively to society.

I used to think my grandmother was uneducated because she only completed 8th grade (common for poor folks in 1920), but in reality, she had more knowledge than today’s average college graduate.

 

[Foxfyre]

The money is secondary. We will return the focus of education to academics - rather than all the woke nonsense - and prepare the next generation to lead our country forward and contribute positively to society.

I used to think my grandmother was uneducated because she only completed 8th grade (common for poor folks in 1920), but in reality, she had more knowledge than today’s average college graduate.

I don't doubt that at all. That's because students used to be encouraged to utilize critical thinking, logic, reason and exposure to all manner of concepts and were not told what they were required to think about much of anything. In other words they were actually educated rather than indoctrinated.