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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

That's why we have the amendment process. The Constitution can be changed.

And, the reason it didn't cover everything is because the FedGov was intended to be limited with most of the power remaining in the states.

 

[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

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

 

[Darkwind]

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

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

Ask the people who died, all 100 million of them, who lived in countries where the law of the land was set aside for those who are living for today.

It helps if people actually looked at how our society is structured and the responsibilities of government.

Our Federal Government is NOT there to make life easier for the people. It exists to act as our representatives to the world.

But how would you like the moral values of Mississippi religion to be standardized across the many states?

Or do you even believe in regional cultures?

 

[jasonnfree]

The dept of education is crooked to the core same as Jimmy Carter

Carter left the southern baptists because of not letting women be pastors

Carter DID NOT leave the democrat party when they went against science and instead promoted and brainwashed abortion to the students

Why did Carter do this??

He is an unwise ADAM TYPE man who thinks pleasing women is the way to help women

Too unwise to see what an outrageous hypocrite he is with still carrying the bible

Carter was one of our best presidents . In the Navy he was an engineering officer and part of the nuclear sub program which only took in the best and brightest. He attempted to introduce solar power while president but reagan put a stop to that as soon as he got in office. Can't have solar horning in on petroleum with all it's government subsidies and all that glorious pollution. Carter probably has the cleanest record, no criminal acts and scandals, unlike reagan, the two bushes, and now the present guy in the white house.

 

[OnePercenter]

The EXISTENCE of the Department of Education is unconstitutional, as Congress lacks the power to spend money on education.

However, no government agency is ever cancelled or abandoned, so Trump should command the Department of Education to re-form itself to conform to the model of the FBI w/r/t local law enforcement. It is a catalyst for new technologies, a source for valuable law enforcement data and information, and a clearing house for statistics. That's what the Dept of Education should be to public schools. Nothing more.

Unconstitutional? What about the commerce clause?

The DoE under one name or another has been in existence since 1953. If you attended public schools during that time, chances are you gained from the DoE grants and loans given to school districts and direct student aid.

So lets take this through practicality. My MBA was a full-boat from my parents. I in-turn full boated two BA's and a PhD, and today MIT for my grandson. I DO understand that not every parent is able to do that, and students need help financially which the DoE does.

The biggest point I'm trying to make is that I don't have my head up my ass like tRump and his supporters.

 

[progressive hunter]

The EXISTENCE of the Department of Education is unconstitutional, as Congress lacks the power to spend money on education.

However, no government agency is ever cancelled or abandoned, so Trump should command the Department of Education to re-form itself to conform to the model of the FBI w/r/t local law enforcement. It is a catalyst for new technologies, a source for valuable law enforcement data and information, and a clearing house for statistics. That's what the Dept of Education should be to public schools. Nothing more.

Unconstitutional? What about the commerce clause?

The DoE under one name or another has been in existence since 1953. If you attended public schools during that time, chances are you gained from the DoE grants and loans given to school districts and direct student aid.

So lets take this through practicality. My MBA was a full-boat from my parents. I in-turn full boated two BA's and a PhD, and today MIT for my grandson. I DO understand that not every parent is able to do that, and students need help financially which the DoE does.

The biggest point I'm trying to make is that I don't have my head up my ass like tRump and his supporters.

and education in this country has been declining since the 60's,,,so what we know from that is government always screws things up


and the commerce clause has been turned into something it was never meant to be

 

[OnePercenter]

The EXISTENCE of the Department of Education is unconstitutional, as Congress lacks the power to spend money on education.

However, no government agency is ever cancelled or abandoned, so Trump should command the Department of Education to re-form itself to conform to the model of the FBI w/r/t local law enforcement. It is a catalyst for new technologies, a source for valuable law enforcement data and information, and a clearing house for statistics. That's what the Dept of Education should be to public schools. Nothing more.

Unconstitutional? What about the commerce clause?

The DoE under one name or another has been in existence since 1953. If you attended public schools during that time, chances are you gained from the DoE grants and loans given to school districts and direct student aid.

So lets take this through practicality. My MBA was a full-boat from my parents. I in-turn full boated two BA's and a PhD, and today MIT for my grandson. I DO understand that not every parent is able to do that, and students need help financially which the DoE does.

The biggest point I'm trying to make is that I don't have my head up my ass like tRump and his supporters.

and education in this country has been declining since the 60's,,,so what we know from that is government always screws things up


and the commerce clause has been turned into something it was never meant to be

How did the government screw-up education?

How do you know that the commerce clause has been turned into something it was never meant to be?

 

[Flopper]

Not one pipe could be laid, not one power line could be installed, not one bridge could be built without engineers to design them.

I'm sorry you have such disregard for the professionals who design, heal, research and teach. Tradesmen are indispensable. But without those with higher education, tradesmen become repairmen, not builders.

Not one pipe could be laid, not one power line could be installed, not one bridge could be built without a tradesman to pick up a shovel, a hammer, a rivet gun, a wrench. I'm sorry you think that college is the ONLY answer to life.

Itynot the only answer. But it's the indispensable answer.

It is very disputable.

I said 'indispensable '.

Why do you have such contempt for higher education? Do you think a plumber can repair your faulty heart valve? Do you think an electrician can design the bridge you drive across? Do you think a carpenter can research infectious diseases?

We absolutely need higher education if, for no other reason, to teach fools like you that skill sets extend only so far and the future is unattainable without highly educated citizens.

Again with the false statements? I don't have contempt for higher education. I have two degrees, and 15 credits toward My MBA.

Which is why I know that I don't ask a plumber to repair a faulty heart valve. I do ask one to repair My indoor plumbing, that is if I can find one. If you had bothered to do any research on this subject at all, you'd know that we have a gap in qualified and skilled tradespeople and millions of unfulfilled jobs in these trades. People can get very high paying jobs, have very satisfying lives, and be happy in life without the massive crushing debt that is associated with degrees that provide no training for jobs that the graduates won't have.

The truth is, educated is not trained and many degreed people are not working in the fields they have a degree for.

I think that higher education is very dispensable for 80% of the country.

People like you are the reason we have an education funding crisis and why people are in unneeded debt.

You look down on people who earn a journeyman position in the trades and treat them as some kind of 'loser' in life's lottery.

Hey, I'll tell you what though, the next time you need a broken pipe fixed, call your family doctor.

You're right there is a huge and growing shortage in the trades. For example Plumbers in my area go for $200/hr if you can find one. Most plumbers in my area make well over 100K a year plus the companies give great benefits fully paid healthcare, nice paid vacation, and retirement. Every plumbing company is is hiring interns and paying up to $25/hr. All training is on job. No class time required. After enough hours you are tested and if you pass you are certified and then you can make the big bucks.

So you say, why aren't kids standing in line to apply? Here what a plumber working at my place told me. He had 5 interns that worked with him over the last 7 or 8 years. Of those on 2 made it. Most of them did not last more than a month or so for two reasons.

First it's hard work. Customers are paying over $3 for every minute you are on site. They watch you like a hawk. You can't stop work and go to the bathroom or have a cup of coffee when you're on site. You are under the house trying to locate a leak as spiders are crawling over you. You walk into a house expecting to replace a toilet seal and find the toilet cracked, the cutoff value frozen, and a problem with a leak behind the wall. You then get to explain to the owner that the bill is going be over a thousand dollars. Then there're the times when you are literally knee deep in shit.

Secondly, you have to be smart both with your hands and your head. You have to diagnosis problems quickly and accurately. You have be able to look at a job and determine all the tools and parts needed so you can make one trip back to the truck. You have to determine at a glance a pipe size, threads, washer sizes, materials and best tools to use. In short, you have to know ten thousands things about plumbing parts and your tools. Otherwise, you'll spend twice as much time as you should on a job which means you'll be you'll be out the job very soon.

There are many jobs in which the quality of your work is not easily measured. In the building trades, your successes and failures are evident to everyone to see, you, your boss, and the customer.

The problem is most kids either do not have dexterity to do the work or they can't diagnose the problems and come up with fix fast enough.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is a great trade school in my hometown. I live on the Marcellus Shale deposit. There are pipelines, storage tanks, fracking wells developed and the nation’s largest Cracking plant being built all at once.

The trade school offers welding, pipe fitting, electrical as well as courses for commercial truck driving.

We also have a branch campus of Kent State University which focuses on health care.

Young folks have ample opportunity and for training.

Higher education must be obtainable for all those who want it.

Eliminating Pell Grants would hinder that opportunity for no purpose.

 

[Flopper]

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

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

the problem is to many people are worthless pansies that only want someone else to handle the problems they should be dealing with

there is no reason the feds should do anything but what they are required to do in the constitution,,,
FOR ***** SAKE THEY CANT EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,,,
and you want them to do more???

what are you a ******* moron???

sorry lost it for a second,,,but my point stands,,,
when the feds stop ******* things up then we can discuss more

 

[Flopper]

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

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

the problem is to many people are worthless pansies that only want someone else to handle the problems they should be dealing with

there is no reason the feds should do anything but what they are required to do in the constitution,,,
FOR ***** SAKE THEY CANT EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,,,
and you want them to do more???

what are you a ******* moron???

sorry lost it for a second,,,but my point stands,,,
when the feds stop ******* things up then we can discuss more

Government ***** things up because it's government. It doesn't matter whether it federal, state, or local. The only reason you aren't complaining about state and local goverment is so much of the work is done at the federal level. Duplicate what the fed does in all 50 states and you would have 50 times the problems we have now. In every state there would be a food stamp program, low income housing program, Medicare, OSHA, a census bureau, state equivalents of the FDIC, SEC, federal reserve, and greatly enhanced state departments of education since they would handling the equivalent of federal financial student aid. Also every state's environmental protection would be expanded. And then there's thousands of federal laws that the states would have passed and enforce. And this is just for starters. The weak treatment of immigration in the Constitution would leave enforcement, regulations to the states. One state might have open borders and the neighboring keeps might keep their borders closed.

However, the biggest problem other than duplication of effort and cost would be the lack of standardization. Businesses operating nationwide would in effect be dealing with 50 different countries.

If that sounds unworkable, it is which is why we have a large federal government. If the federal government adhered to the constitution without any interpretation, the country as it is today would not exist. The United States would be similar to EU providing for the common defense and trade treaties.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

the problem is to many people are worthless pansies that only want someone else to handle the problems they should be dealing with

there is no reason the feds should do anything but what they are required to do in the constitution,,,
FOR ***** SAKE THEY CANT EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,,,
and you want them to do more???

what are you a ******* moron???

sorry lost it for a second,,,but my point stands,,,
when the feds stop ******* things up then we can discuss more

Government ***** things up because it's government. It doesn't matter whether it federal, state, or local. The only reason you aren't complaining about state and local goverment is so much of the work is done at the federal level. Duplicate what the fed does in all 50 states and you would have 50 times the problems we have now. In every state there would be a food stamp program, low income housing program, Medicare, OSHA, a census bureau, state equivalents of the FDIC, SEC, federal reserve, and greatly enhanced state departments of education since they would handling the equivalent of federal financial student aid. Also every state's environmental protection would be expanded. And then there's thousands of federal laws that the states would have passed and enforce. And this is just for starters. The weak treatment of immigration in the Constitution would leave enforcement, regulations to the states. One state might have open borders and the neighboring keeps might keep their borders closed.

However, the biggest problem other than duplication of effort and cost would be the lack of standardization. Businesses operating nationwide would in effect be dealing with 50 different countries.

If that sounds unworkable, it is which is why we have a large federal government. If the federal government adhered to the constitution without any interpretation, the country as it is today would not exist. The United States would be similar to EU providing for the common defense and trade treaties.

BULLSHIT!!!

 

[Flopper]

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

the problem is to many people are worthless pansies that only want someone else to handle the problems they should be dealing with

there is no reason the feds should do anything but what they are required to do in the constitution,,,
FOR ***** SAKE THEY CANT EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,,,
and you want them to do more???

what are you a ******* moron???

sorry lost it for a second,,,but my point stands,,,
when the feds stop ******* things up then we can discuss more

Government ***** things up because it's government. It doesn't matter whether it federal, state, or local. The only reason you aren't complaining about state and local goverment is so much of the work is done at the federal level. Duplicate what the fed does in all 50 states and you would have 50 times the problems we have now. In every state there would be a food stamp program, low income housing program, Medicare, OSHA, a census bureau, state equivalents of the FDIC, SEC, federal reserve, and greatly enhanced state departments of education since they would handling the equivalent of federal financial student aid. Also every state's environmental protection would be expanded. And then there's thousands of federal laws that the states would have passed and enforce. And this is just for starters. The weak treatment of immigration in the Constitution would leave enforcement, regulations to the states. One state might have open borders and the neighboring keeps might keep their borders closed.

However, the biggest problem other than duplication of effort and cost would be the lack of standardization. Businesses operating nationwide would in effect be dealing with 50 different countries.

If that sounds unworkable, it is which is why we have a large federal government. If the federal government adhered to the constitution without any interpretation, the country as it is today would not exist. The United States would be similar to EU providing for the common defense and trade treaties.

BULLSHIT!!!

That's a good reply when you have no rebuttal.

 

[anynameyouwish]

well
I'm a progressive moron (no doubt you are hunting me)

but it seems to me,
regardless of what the constitution does or does not say about education,
that it makes a LOT of sense for every student in the USA to be educated in a similar fashion; same language, same history. As others have stated: minimum standards that we can all agree on.

if we only go by the constitution
and we refuse to allow ANYTHING that isn't actually CONDONED by the constitution
we won't be able to do anything but fire off our guns and mouths.

Many people (conservative christians) would like to set (in law) STANDARDS of marriage (one man, one woman) but THAT isn't in the constitution, either.

The constitution is a fine document but it didn't cover everything.

I don't believe that people living today should be bound by the dictates of men who died 200 years ago.

Seems to me that the living have every right to decide for themselves.

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

the problem is to many people are worthless pansies that only want someone else to handle the problems they should be dealing with

there is no reason the feds should do anything but what they are required to do in the constitution,,,
FOR ***** SAKE THEY CANT EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,,,
and you want them to do more???

what are you a ******* moron???

sorry lost it for a second,,,but my point stands,,,
when the feds stop ******* things up then we can discuss more

Government ***** things up because it's government. It doesn't matter whether it federal, state, or local. The only reason you aren't complaining about state and local goverment is so much of the work is done at the federal level. Duplicate what the fed does in all 50 states and you would have 50 times the problems we have now. In every state there would be a food stamp program, low income housing program, Medicare, OSHA, a census bureau, state equivalents of the FDIC, SEC, federal reserve, and greatly enhanced state departments of education since they would handling the equivalent of federal financial student aid. Also every state's environmental protection would be expanded. And then there's thousands of federal laws that the states would have passed and enforce. And this is just for starters. The weak treatment of immigration in the Constitution would leave enforcement, regulations to the states. One state might have open borders and the neighboring keeps might keep their borders closed.

However, the biggest problem other than duplication of effort and cost would be the lack of standardization. Businesses operating nationwide would in effect be dealing with 50 different countries.

If that sounds unworkable, it is which is why we have a large federal government. If the federal government adhered to the constitution without any interpretation, the country as it is today would not exist. The United States would be similar to EU providing for the common defense and trade treaties.

BULLSHIT!!!

Yes...your reply is, indeed, bullshit.

 

[SweetSue92]

Would you miss it?

What is the constitutional basis for the DoE?

I am a public school teacher....

And NO. Shut it down. Good for nothing but waste and more edicts we don't need.

 

[Decus]

The Swiss have 26 cantons (states) and 4 national languages.
The Swiss federal government has relatively little power, as most decisions are made by each individual canton (state) and decisions are rarely unanimous in the direction each canton takes. Switzerland however is successful.

Regarding Swiss education:

"Legislation on public schools is made by the cantons, resulting in 26 different education systems, but the public schools are actually run by the communes, much like many other public services (like water supply and garbage collection)."

Switzerland's Government and Politics

To say that Americans are incapable of governing themselves on a State level is bullshit. Those who espouse big government are really saying that Americans are too stupid to think and act for themselves.

.

 

[Crixus]

Would you miss it?

What is the constitutional basis for the DoE?

Yes. Public education as it is is a joke. China, India and Pakistan have more genus children then America has kids. Maybe not get rid of the DOE, but definitely purge it right down to the janitors.

 

[progressive hunter]

you are aware the states can and should take up these issues???

and we all know the best government is that closest to the people,,,

imagine if you lived in arizona and wanted to personally file a grievance against a specific issue,,,which is easier going to washington dc or going to phoenix???,,2000 miles verses maybe a cpl hundred miles

not to mention the overload of 320 million people going to one place

I think those dead guys did a good job that can last another 230 yrs


and if the people of today want to decide different they can,,,just change the law,,,,

There is no doubt that local government is best when dealing local issues. However, the problem is the number of purely local issues are declining and becoming national or regional issues as we become more of a nation and less a confederation of states.

When the nation was founded only 1 in 50 people would every live outside of the state they were born. In fact. most people never travel outside of their home state. States were more like autonomous nations than the United States. There was no need for the federal government to do anything other that regulated foreign trade and provide for the defense. However, that is not how we live today. How can a state deal with telecommunications, financial services, electronic commerce, air and water pollution, cyber crime, climate change, and other issues which know no state boundaries? Is every state to develop their own response to national issues. That makes no sense.

the problem is to many people are worthless pansies that only want someone else to handle the problems they should be dealing with

there is no reason the feds should do anything but what they are required to do in the constitution,,,
FOR ***** SAKE THEY CANT EVEN GET THAT RIGHT,,,
and you want them to do more???

what are you a ******* moron???

sorry lost it for a second,,,but my point stands,,,
when the feds stop ******* things up then we can discuss more

Government ***** things up because it's government. It doesn't matter whether it federal, state, or local. The only reason you aren't complaining about state and local goverment is so much of the work is done at the federal level. Duplicate what the fed does in all 50 states and you would have 50 times the problems we have now. In every state there would be a food stamp program, low income housing program, Medicare, OSHA, a census bureau, state equivalents of the FDIC, SEC, federal reserve, and greatly enhanced state departments of education since they would handling the equivalent of federal financial student aid. Also every state's environmental protection would be expanded. And then there's thousands of federal laws that the states would have passed and enforce. And this is just for starters. The weak treatment of immigration in the Constitution would leave enforcement, regulations to the states. One state might have open borders and the neighboring keeps might keep their borders closed.

However, the biggest problem other than duplication of effort and cost would be the lack of standardization. Businesses operating nationwide would in effect be dealing with 50 different countries.

If that sounds unworkable, it is which is why we have a large federal government. If the federal government adhered to the constitution without any interpretation, the country as it is today would not exist. The United States would be similar to EU providing for the common defense and trade treaties.

BULLSHIT!!!

Yes...your reply is, indeed, bullshit.

so you can read,,,thats a relief,,,

 

[OnePercenter]

Would you miss it?

What is the constitutional basis for the DoE?

Yes. Public education as it is is a joke. China, India and Pakistan have more genus children then America has kids. Maybe not get rid of the DOE, but definitely purge it right down to the janitors.

Public education is run at the local level, so if you have a problem with that.....that is where you should start.

China, India, and Pakistan have more genus children PER CAPITA than the US? The US has has 326M people. China, India have 2.53B with Pakistan having 197M.

The Department of Education has been in existence since 1953 with their efforts focusing on: Student Loans, Grants, Laws, and Data. It also goes after fraud in education such as tRump University.