Smarter than you; Southern Man, Good Luck…

flaja said:
Founding Father George Washington and Founding Father James Madison both said it is. Get over it.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't. Again funding without strings is not a wresting of control. You confusing giving money to Seminaries and other private institutions (vouchers) with an attempt to control WHAT they teach. Neither Washington or Madison suggested controls on WHAT they teach, they did not suggest an unconstitutional takeover of a power they did not have.

Washington did not promote the takeover of the education system by the Federal government, except in your wildest fantasies.
 
Damocles said:
No, they didn't. Again funding without strings is not a wresting of control. You confusing giving money to Seminaries and other private institutions (vouchers) with an attempt to control WHAT they teach. Neither Washington or Madison suggested controls on WHAT they teach, they did not suggest an unconstitutional takeover of a power they did not have.

Washington did not promote the takeover of the education system by the Federal government, except in your wildest fantasies.
Click to expand...

Since when does government money ever come without strings attached? If you are saying that Washington asked Congress to hand out money to promote and support science and literature and education without dictating the terms under which the money could be spent, you are essentially saying it was Washington’s original intent to waste taxpayer money.

Also, both Washington and Madison called upon Congress to create a national university, not merely hand out money to existing schools within the states. Inherent in the creation of a national university is the setting of enrollment criteria, i.e., determining the curriculum of all of the schools whose students may wish to enroll in the national university. Even if Congress did not expressly make regulations for state and private schools, state and private schools would have to follow whatever lead Congress established by regulating the national university or else face the possibility that their own students could not enroll in the national university. This is precisely what happened with West Point. Students had to know certain academic things to enroll at West Point, so by regulating West Point Congress also regulated (what amounted to) K-12 education.

Based on your other posts, I thought you were smart enough to understand. I guess I was wrong.
 
flaja said:
Since when does government money ever come without strings attached? If you are saying that Washington asked Congress to hand out money to promote and support science and literature and education without dictating the terms under which the money could be spent, you are essentially saying it was Washington’s original intent to waste taxpayer money.

Also, both Washington and Madison called upon Congress to create a national university, not merely hand out money to existing schools within the states. Inherent in the creation of a national university is the setting of enrollment criteria, i.e., determining the curriculum of all of the schools whose students may wish to enroll in the national university. Even if Congress did not expressly make regulations for state and private schools, state and private schools would have to follow whatever lead Congress established by regulating the national university or else face the possibility that their own students could not enroll in the national university. This is precisely what happened with West Point. Students had to know certain academic things to enroll at West Point, so by regulating West Point Congress also regulated (what amounted to) K-12 education.

Based on your other posts, I thought you were smart enough to understand. I guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...
When it is proposed without it. He promoted giving money to them because he believed it promoted the general welfare, he proposed not one iota of control over what they taught.

I thought you would be honest enough to speak within the actual boundaries of what actually was proposed, rather than try to "translate" what wasn't proposed to make it say what you wanted it to rather than what it did. I should have known by your insistence that the original intent is worthless when compared to your ability to "interpret" what you want out of the documents meant to control the power of the federal government that you would not be able to honestly read what you posted about what Washington proposed.

No control of their curriculum was put forward, because education is not a power of the Federal government. In fact the first President that proposed any of those controls over education and got them passed was George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States. And he was mostly able to get it done without an outcry because people do not pay enough attention to the 10th Amendment.
 
flaja said:
When have I ever claimed that any Founding Father ever said the Constitution gives the federal governmnet unlimited power? All I have ever said is that the Constittuon was designed to be a living document and thus the federal government has more constitutional power than you want to accept.
Click to expand...
The Constitution was designed to be changed only through Amendments; a laborious process. What's happened instead are "re-interpretations", which is bullshit. Also the SCOTUS letting the Legislative branch have whatever it wants, which is also bullshit.
 
Southern Man said:
The Constitution was designed to be changed only through Amendments; a laborious process. What's happened instead are "re-interpretations", which is bullshit. Also the SCOTUS letting the Legislative branch have whatever it wants, which is also bullshit.
Click to expand...

The Supreme are suppose to make sure that amendments are constitutional, call it what you like, it is what the FF's wanted. Checks and balances!
The majority isn't always right or fair!
 
froggie said:
The Supreme are suppose to make sure that amendments are constitutional, call it what you like, it is what the FF's wanted. Checks and balances!
The majority isn't always right or fair!
Click to expand...
As I said in the post that you responded to, SCOTUS has not been doing its job.

The first time I read the Constitution as a youngster I thought that the SCOTUS was a weak point in the contract. The more I find out about historical decisions the more I realize how right my first interpretation was.
 
froggie said:
The Supreme are suppose to make sure that amendments are constitutional, call it what you like, it is what the FF's wanted. Checks and balances!
The majority isn't always right or fair!
Click to expand...

Ummm, an AMENDMENT to the Constitution is automatically "constitutional". At the point of ratification, it becomes a part of the Constitution.

Now, if you meant SCOTUS is supposed to make sure legislation is constitutional, then we agree.
 
flaja said:
And how do you know when the authority to regulate commerce is properly exercised if you don't interpret what the Constitution means? What is proper regulation under one set of circumstances may not be proper under another.

You original intentists have reached the point where you are being argued in circles; my work on the subject is done.
Click to expand...
LOL Who is talking in circles? Maybe you keep going back to "interpreting" because you are totally clueless about the basics of the relationship between economics and politics.

It is simple. Regulation of commerce means regulate it - primarily to keep states from screwing with each others' economic base (A job they failed at in the 1850s, which triggered the Civil War.) Regulation of commerce means things like anti-trust laws to protect the people from monopolies. (a job they are not doing very well at today, since business seems to be regulating government instead of the other way around.) If you are still confused, try looking up the terms "regulate" and "commerce" in the dictionary. (Preferably an 1787 version)

Regulation does not mean promotion of one industry over another. That is promotion, not regulation. It does not mean giving one industry preferential treatment over another in the form of grants and tax breaks. that is manipulation, not regulation. Allowing these items simply exacerbates problems since they invariably end up supporting through promotion and manipulation those industries they feel most beholden to in maintaining their power. (ie: getting away from the original intent of the Constitution is a prime reason WHY we see big business taking over the government to the benefit of big business.)
 
Last edited:
froggie said:
The Supreme are suppose to make sure that amendments are constitutional, call it what you like, it is what the FF's wanted. Checks and balances!
The majority isn't always right or fair!
Click to expand...
An Amendment could not be unconstitutional, if it is ratified it becomes part of the constitution.
 
Good Luck said:
Ummm, an AMENDMENT to the Constitution is automatically "constitutional". At the point of ratification, it becomes a part of the Constitution.

Now, if you meant SCOTUS is supposed to make sure legislation is constitutional, then we agree.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is anything in the Constitution of their pre-checking all pieces of legislation.
 
Damocles said:
I don't think there is anything in the Constitution of their pre-checking all pieces of legislation.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about pre-checking legislation. But I use the term instead of "laws" because not all legislation coming out of congress results in a law. And they don't check anything unless it is challenged. (That is why the more questionable portions of the Patriot Act still stand - they have not been challenged yet.)
 
Damocles said:
I don't think there is anything in the Constitution of their pre-checking all pieces of legislation.
Click to expand...

That option was actually considered by the Constitutional Convention. It was debated whether or not the Supreme Court should share the president’s veto power as part of a council of revision, but it was concluded to give the president the sole veto power and let the Court have its say only as legal suits came before it. The Supreme Court was established to be a check on the Congress (and by extension the president, but I think the president was a minor concern at the Convention in this regard), meaning the Supreme Court was established with the power of judicial review, meaning the Supreme Court was established with the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution so as to determine whether or not a law (or presidential action) complies with the Constitution.
 
flaja said:
That option was actually considered by the Constitutional Convention. It was debated whether or not the Supreme Court should share the president’s veto power as part of a council of revision, but it was concluded to give the president the sole veto power and let the Court have its say only as legal suits came before it. The Supreme Court was established to be a check on the Congress (and by extension the president, but I think the president was a minor concern at the Convention in this regard), meaning the Supreme Court was established with the power of judicial review, meaning the Supreme Court was established with the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution so as to determine whether or not a law (or presidential action) complies with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The supreme court had no such power of 'judicial review' until Marbury v. Madison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top