Why Obama’s Address to Schoolchildren Is Objectionable

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As I read the many editorial columns and articles in support of Obama’s speech, I can see that many writers are very upset and emotional over criticism of Obama’s action. They also are clueless concerning the reasons why his address is unwelcome. They are name-calling. They are not bothering to mention, much less rebut, the reasoned objections of people like me.

I can at least articulate my reasons for objecting.

Such a speech blurs or crosses several boundaries that I believe there are good reasons to have in place.

The President’s constitutional powers are explicit. They include the "executive Power." They include being "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and a few more listed in the Constitution, including preserving and protecting the Constitution. They do not include addressing schoolchildren.

Why Obama’s Address to Schoolchildren Is Objectionable by Michael S. Rozeff

 

[veritas]

blah blah bah..hairball.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

blah blah bah..hairball.

Was it really even worth taking the effort to post that?

 

[paperview]

What a hilariously stupid essay.

The ending was a kicker: "[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth."
[/FONT]
Good Lord. You people...I swear.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

 

[DavidS]

This is the stupidest issue I've ever seen Republicans get caught up over ever since lipstick on a pig. I think it's the one year anniversary for that, so it would make sense. The Republicans need a faux outrage over something once a year.

There are millions of students going back to school tomorrow. Getting a pep talk from the commander in chief, reminding them about the importance of a good education and to stay in school is a huge deal and I would absolutely, positively make my children watch this speech whether it was from Obama, Reagan, HW Bush or W Bush. Education is one of the biggest elephants in the room right now - it's disgusting how our education system is one of the worst in the world - compared to countries that have far less money than we do. While I maintain that schools should receive money from local and state funds, I also maintain that the school year should be longer, children should be taught more about culture, art, philosophy, different languages, etc. and that we should completely overhaul our education system and give more federal oversight of it. A better educated society in the long run can have massive, positive implications for society overall.

Look at our educational system compared to India's... or China's... this is something that should be a huge priority for the federal government and unfortunately, it's not. Do we really need to keep learning the same American History, the same World History in almost every other grade? Do we really need to learn Algebra when only a very small fraction of society uses it? Why can't we teach a 5th grader about the nuances of music theory? Why can't we teach a 6th grader how to appreciate art instead of the same BS painting and clay crap?

Even with the educational system as it is, receiving a pep talk directly from the President no matter what party affiliation he has, would be something special. I'm going to buy a #2 pencil today just for the occasion.

 

[jillian]

blah blah bah..hairball.

Was it really even worth taking the effort to post that?

Probably not... because it's really stupid.

 

[paperview]

 

[Luissa]

it is not objectable, he is president and this what they do. They make speeches to school children, they read them books, they write children's books about their dogs, their wives start a reading campaign. it is normal.

 

[Xenophon]

Interesting argument on Constitutional grounds.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the President’s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

But these days few care about such things.

 

[Truthmatters]

I wonder how many of these people screamed when Reagan talked to kids, When bush 41 talked to kids or when Bush 43 talked to kids?

You know they screamed when Clinton did.

 

[paperview]

Interesting argument on Constitutional grounds.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the President’s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

But these days few care about such things.

No, it's not interesting, it's not even correct.

See: "Provide...for the General Welfare."

 

[goldcatt]

If it were a political speech, I would be as concerned as anyone. But I fail to see how the President telling kids to take their education seriously and stay in school, not the first and probably not the last to do so, is in any way objectionable.
The essay is preposterous too, since following it to its inevitable conclusion would reduce the U.S. to an illiterate feudal society with a few rich families and communities acting as the monasteries of the Dark Ages. Set aside education for only those individuals and communities who can afford it, and we're talking reversion to Third World status within two generations max.

 

[jillian]

Interesting argument on Constitutional grounds.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the President’s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

But these days few care about such things.

Really? How 'bout when FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush were president.

BTW, his constitutional arguments are absurd...that's why no one cares about them

 

[edthecynic]

As I read the many editorial columns and articles in support of Obama’s speech, I can see that many writers are very upset and emotional over criticism of Obama’s action. They also are clueless concerning the reasons why his address is unwelcome. They are name-calling. They are not bothering to mention, much less rebut, the reasoned objections of people like me.

I can at least articulate my reasons for objecting.

Such a speech blurs or crosses several boundaries that I believe there are good reasons to have in place.

The President’s constitutional powers are explicit. They include the "executive Power." They include being "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and a few more listed in the Constitution, including preserving and protecting the Constitution. They do not include addressing schoolchildren.

Why Obama’s Address to Schoolchildren Is Objectionable by Michael S. Rozeff
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.[/FONT]

That has to be the STUPIDEST rationalization of all!!!
Reagan and Bush set the "dangerous precedent" without objection from the wing-nut crybabies.

 

[chanel]

Honest question; Was the content of the speech changed?

 

[jillian]

Honest question; Was the content of the speech changed?

I don't believe so. The only thing I know that was changed was the suggestion that kids write a letter to the president (though I think a kid writing to any president is a cool thing for them to do).

 

[chanel]

Thanks I think that may be an urban legend that's floating around.

 

[jillian]

wouldn't be the first one.

 

[goldcatt]

wouldn't be the first one.

That's for sure.

 

[DavidS]

You know, maybe if Bush hadn't been so concerned about education on September 11th, he might've been in a command position to actually do something that day instead of reading My Pet Goat.