Yes! Trump should work to closed down the un-constitutional federal Dept of Education

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Space Force? Is this a Elon Musk Thing before we KNEW it was an Elon Musk Thing?

Space Force......Is it in the Constitution?

Elastic clause.

 

[22lcidw]

Finding efficiencies and not raising the budgets for all the programs as much is possible. This would let us take control of our budgets over a period of time.

 

[johnwk]

Elastic clause. That case had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the services. Try reading your links, dumbass!

Justice Douglas and Marshall in their dissenting opinion expound upon the constitutionality of the Army, Navy and Air force as follows:


"The Army, Navy, and Air Force are comprehended in the constitutional term "armies." Article I, § 8, provides that Congress may "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy," and make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Justice Douglas and Marshall in their dissenting opinion expound upon the constitutionality of the Army, Navy and Air force as follows:


"The Army, Navy, and Air Force are comprehended in the constitutional term "armies." Article I, § 8, provides that Congress may "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy," and make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

Do you not understand the meaning of the fucking word "dissent". It means not a fucking thing, moron! You really are stupid, aren't' you?

 

[johnwk]

Do you not understand the meaning of the fucking word "dissent". It means not a fucking thing, moron! You really are stupid, aren't' you?

Yes. That is why I wrote: "Justice Douglas and Marshall in their dissenting opinion expound upon the constitutionality of the Army, Navy and Air force as follows:"


Do you understand the meaning of the word "expound"? Take a course in constitutional law and get back to me.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[busybee01]

On Oct. 17th, 1979 the unconstitutional Department of Education Organization Act was approved, and it is time to not only close this unconstitutional federal agency down but end federal funding to the unconstitutional National Endowment for the Arts, and the unconstitutional National Endowment for the Humanities.

Closing down these three blatantly unconstitutional federal agencies would leave in the pockets of America’s taxpayers about $68 billion per year.

How do I know these federal agencies are not only unconstitutional, and survive by devouring about $68 billion from the people’s treasury? I know it is true because a review of historical documentation, including the debates during which time our constitution was framed, confirms the fact.

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 how may this be done by the terms of our Constitution? Our Constitution states explicitly ”… by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Additionally, and with respect to the above mentioned spending, Representative Page’s words, spoken on Feb.7th, 1792 elaborates on the suffering we now experience by our Constitution being subverted.

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page (enter 194 in the small box at the top of the page)

We must also take into account that our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, was specifically adopted “. . . in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (our newly created federal government’s) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. SOURCE

And let us not forget that Madison, in Federalist 45, summarizes the division of federal and state powers as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

So, by what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted power to tax and spend $68 billion per year on the institutions mentioned above who openly participate in indoctrination, propaganda, and advocate for sexual deviant behavior?

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

You are a stupid moron who has no clue what he is talking about. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The Congress would have to close it because it was created by Congress.

 

[johnwk]

You are a stupid moron who has no clue what he is talking about. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The Congress would have to close it because it was created by Congress.

I noticed you offered an unsubstantiated opinion, and failed to offer a rebuttal to what wrote, which is backed up with documentation.

Now, how about quoting specific words I wrote in their context, and then offer you rebuttal to those specific words?

Finally, smarty pants, you never answered the question: What wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted power to tax and spend $68 billion per year on the institutions mentioned above who openly participate in indoctrination, propaganda, and advocate for sexual deviant behavior?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes. That is why I wrote: "Justice Douglas and Marshall in their dissenting opinion expound upon the constitutionality of the Army, Navy and Air force as follows:"


Do you understand the meaning of the word "expound"? Take a course in constitutional law and get back to me.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Yes, I do. I have told you I already have. I taught the fucking class! That doesn't change the fact that you are apparently a know-nothing moron prone to bloviating when you can't prove your point. Dissent means they didn't win the decision as they were outvoted. The decision stood. The entire case has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Air Force or Space Force. It has to do with law enforcement by the military, which you should have known had you actually read it. Your Google skills suck!

 

[johnwk]

Dissent means they didn't win

And that is why I wrote "Justice Douglas and Marshall in their dissenting opinion expound upon the constitutionality of the Army, Navy and Air force as follows:"

"The Army, Navy, and Air Force are comprehended in the constitutional term "armies." Article I, § 8, provides that Congress may "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy," and make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

Their opinion, if in the majority, would actually be considered "dicta", and even so, only offers an important and credible view as to content.

Do you understand what "dicta" is?

Take a constitutional law class and then get back to me.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Well, for e.g. see:

"The Army, Navy, and Air Force are comprehended in the constitutional term "armies." Article I, § 8, provides that Congress may "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy," and make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)​

The USMC falls under the purview of the US Navy if I'm correct.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I noticed you offered an unsubstantiated opinion, and failed to offer a rebuttal to what wrote, which is backed up with documentation.

Now, how about quoting specific words I wrote in their context, and then offer you rebuttal to those specific words?

Finally, smarty pants, you never answered the question: What wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted power to tax and spend $68 billion per year on the institutions mentioned above who openly participate in indoctrination, propaganda, and advocate for sexual deviant behavior?

This is not being advocated by the Education Department in the first place, as it does not occur in the vast majority of schools in the United States, you have been reading propaganda by fellow reactionary morons. This happens in blue school districts only in blue states mostly. I have three grandchildren in school and they have never seen anything like this. Does it occur? Yes, absolutely. Nowhere near that which you education bashers believe.

Most conservative critics of education in this forum are simply not educated about education. It is strange that all of the public school teachers, both active and retired like me, liberal and conservative, tend to agree that most of you are lost in your own little world of your own creation. Even when proven wrong without a doubt, you scream, "Nuh unh" and stomp your feet like a 3-year-old.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Yes, I do. I have told you I already have. I taught the fucking class! That doesn't change the fact that you are apparently a know-nothing moron prone to bloviating when you can't prove your point. Dissent means they didn't win the decision as they were outvoted. The decision stood. The entire case has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Air Force or Space Force. It has to do with law enforcement by the military, which you should have known had you actually read it. Your Google skills suck!

You're one of those "living document" asshats? Thought so.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And that is why I wrote "Justice Douglas and Marshall in their dissenting opinion expound upon the constitutionality of the Army, Navy and Air force as follows:"

"The Army, Navy, and Air Force are comprehended in the constitutional term "armies." Article I, § 8, provides that Congress may "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy," and make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

Their opinion, if in the majority, would actually be considered "dicta", and even so, only offers and important and credible view as to content.

Do you understand what "dicta" is?

Take a constitutional law class and then get back to me.

Oh, my fucking God! You cannot read! That's the problem. Everyone should just place you on ignore so they won't have to read your bullshit!

The court case has nothing to do with it anyway! Why can't you get that through that concrete block you carry around instead of a brain?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're one of those "living document" asshats? Thought so.

Not at all. I just know my Constitution better than this asshat! Elastic clause. You apparently don't know what it means either.

 

[Moonglow]

A trip down memory lane and our perverted government agencies​

Is it not an irrefutable fact that the above mentioned federal agencies have openly participate in indoctrination, propaganda, and have used tax dollars to display sexual deviant behavior such as Andres Serrano's anti-Christian bigotry called "P*** Christ"; Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”; Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater; Karen Finley, “the nude, chocolate smeared women”; Kyle Abraham’s “The Watershed and When the Wolves Came In” focusing on sexual identity; a 2016 festival for sexual deviant singing groups who appeared in a “flash mob” in Denver; taxpayer financing for a sexual deviant festival in San Francisco; funding for the Feminist Press at the City University of New York to digitize classic LGBT titles; an open mic group in D.C for story telling about “Queer Culture in America"; and the latest venomous and hateful smut on display financed by tax revenue being Shakespeare In Central Park depicting the violent murder of President Trump.

Our Founders were absolutely correct to limit Congress’ power to “… securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” when promoting "... the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Are we to believe that Drag queen dancing is a “useful” art?​

It is art whether you approve or disapprove.

 

[Moonglow]

The Elastic Clause, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, is a part of the United States Constitution that grants Congress the power to pass laws that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The clause is located at the end of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.


The Elastic Clause gives Congress the power to make laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry out the other powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean that Congress can pass any law that is reasonably related to its constitutional powers.


The Elastic Clause is the source of most federal laws. For example, in the 1819 Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court ruled that Congress has the implied power to establish a bank because it is a suitable tool to help with Congress's power to tax and spend.

 

[johnwk]

Oh, my fucking God! You cannot read! That's the problem. Everyone should just place you on ignore so they won't have to read your bullshit!

The court case has nothing to do with it anyway! Why can't you get that through that concrete block you carry around instead of a brain?

I accept your inability to offer a rebuttal to what I actually wrote.

 

[johnwk]

The Elastic Clause, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, is a part of the United States Constitution that grants Congress the power to pass laws that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The clause is located at the end of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.


The Elastic Clause gives Congress the power to make laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry out the other powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean that Congress can pass any law that is reasonably related to its constitutional powers.


The Elastic Clause is the source of most federal laws. For example, in the 1819 Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court ruled that Congress has the implied power to establish a bank because it is a suitable tool to help with Congress's power to tax and spend.

Seem that this is one of the few times we agree.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I accept your inability to offer a rebuttal to what I actually wrote.

One cannot rebut garbage you post. Welcome to my ignore list. I prefer not to converse with idiots. I suggest others do the same. You are worthless.

 

[johnwk]

One cannot rebut garbage you post.

Your white flag is accepted