02 Aug 10
The US shouldn't have to break up into different countries. It should simply follow the document that the government is supposed to work under. That document, the Constitution, includes the 10th amendment.
Does any European governmental document include something like our 10th amendment?
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarOutside of the right wing's usual raving and ranting, who says it doesn't?
The US shouldn't have to break up into different countries. It should simply follow the document that the government is supposed to work under. That document, the Constitution, includes the 10th amendment.
Does any European governmental document include something like our 10th amendment?
The Ten Amendment is basically surplus verbiage insisted on by some fence sitters in the original ratification debate and inserted by the Federalists because it does no harm. It's not a separate source of State power as some present right wingers want to pretend. Stating "or the people" was meant to forestall any argument that the Constitution enlarged the police powers of the individual States; indeed the Constitution explicitly imposed new limits on State exercise of power (and that was even before the 14th Amendment).
02 Aug 10
The Ten Amendment is basically surplus verbiage insisted on by some fence sitters in the original ratification debate and inserted by the Federalists because it does no harm.
So you are saying that the 10th amendment doesn't actually reserve rights to the States. OK.
It's not a separate source of State power as some present right wingers want to pretend.
So it was meant to dupe the people on the fence.
Stating "or the people" was meant to forestall any argument that the Constitution enlarged the police powers of the individual States; indeed the Constitution explicitly imposed new limits on State exercise of power
So the provisions stated early that restrict what States can't do aren't enough. The 10th amendment was put there to make sure that states were put in their place and to not take too much power. Got ya.
Wow, I never knew how much different the 10th amendment looks to lefties.
02 Aug 10
4 edits
Originally posted by EladarI realize you're demented, but how anyone could possibly read into my post the BS you just did is just amazing.
[/b]The Ten Amendment is basically surplus verbiage insisted on by some fence sitters in the original ratification debate and inserted by the Federalists because it does no harm.
So you are saying that the 10th amendment doesn't actually reserve rights to the States. OK.
It's not a separate source of State power as some present right wingers want wer. Got ya.
Wow, I never knew how much different the 10th amendment looks to lefties.
You really need to do some Constitutional research; you can start with Federalist 45 where Madison addresses the arguments for a "reserved powers" clause and finds them unpersuasive. He didn't change his mind when he actually wrote one, his reasoning was what I stated. Nowhere does that supports your idiotic reading of my post.
EDIT: Since you won't understand Madison either, here's the bullet response:
Whether the 10 Amendment had been enacted or not, the Framers recognized that powers were reserved to the States. So it doesn't actually "reserve powers to the States"; if expressly states what the Framers understand already.
It wasn't meant to "dupe" anyone; most Federalists were comfortable with the Constitution as already written, some people wanted the addition of provisions that the Federalists found unnecessary but weren't ideologically opposed to. The Bill of Rights fits into the same category; if there was no Bill of Rights the people would still have rights; if there was no 10th Amendment the States would still have reserved powers.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by no1marauderhe dident say any thing demented or idiotic concerning your retarded post. He answered it based on the stupid explanation you gave.
I realize you're demented, but how anyone could possibly read into my post the BS you just did is just amazing.
You really need to do some Constitutional research; you can start with Federalist 45 where Madison addresses the arguments for a "reserved powers" clause and finds them unpersuasive. He didn't change his mind when he actually w ...[text shortened]... his reasoning was what I stated. Nowhere does that supports your idiotic reading of my post.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThat "stupid explanation" is a historical fact as anyone who has actually studied the ratification process knows.
he dident say any thing demented or idiotic concerning your retarded post. He answered it based on the stupid explanation you gave.
Right wingers have a profound ignorance of the Framers and the country's history.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYou dont know what the hell you are talking about.
That "stupid explanation" is a historical fact as anyone who has actually studied the ratification process knows.
Right wingers have a profound ignorance of the Framers and the country's history.
And you are not what you claim to be.
The internet is a wonderful thing. 🙂
02 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarThe Federal government doesn't say anything about eduction, and federal education funding is a minute percentage of overall public school funding. It's probably the most hands-off department we have. It doesn't say anything about curricula, standards (event the standards required for federal funding under NCLB are set by states), accreditation, etc. So what's the problem? I guess you could have an ideologically principled opposition to the federal student-loan program (which I agree should be modified), but the DoED is not some thought-policing bogeyman.
If what you say is true, then does the Federal government have a right to say anything about Education? Sure, it has an interest in Education, but Constitutionally does it have the right to have any power over Education whatsoever?
Getting back to the greater picture...
It seems to me that the 10th amendment is what makes the US unique. It is the foun nt design. An all powerful Federal government is not what is described in the Constitution.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarryou sure about that? tens of billions from the stimulas went towards it and now they are pushing for 20 billion more.
The Federal government doesn't say anything about eduction, and federal education funding is a minute percentage of overall public school funding. It's probably the most hands-off department we have. It doesn't say anything about curricula, standards (event the standards required for federal funding under NCLB are set by states), accreditation, etc. So what ...[text shortened]... gram (which I agree should be modified), but the DoED is not some thought-policing bogeyman.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrThere's no getting around the fact that if we limit the government to the framework of the Constitution we wouldn't have the Department of Education at all. Yes, the money spent on it is a drop in the bucket, but getting rid of it would still money saved. The Department of Education represents the fundamental problem with how Washington DC thinks (as well as many throughout the US). If we are doing something 'good', then it is the right thing to do. Even if the Federal government has no right in the area and the 10th Amendment reserves it to the States, the Federal government tries to 'fix' it anyhow. Overstepping the boundries drawn by the Constitution in the name of a righteous cause.
The Federal government doesn't say anything about eduction, and federal education funding is a minute percentage of overall public school funding. It's probably the most hands-off department we have. It doesn't say anything about curricula, standards (event the standards required for federal funding under NCLB are set by states), accreditation, etc. So what ...[text shortened]... gram (which I agree should be modified), but the DoED is not some thought-policing bogeyman.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonRight, but that doesn't contradict anything I posted above. Much of the money distributed as part of the stimulus was for state-stabilization purposes (e.g., about 2/3 of the money distributed to New York was to help them balance their state budget), and to keep teachers employed and schools open. This seems like a wise policy, when states are dealing with a severe and debilitating economy. There is also Title I funding, aimed to reach low-income and disabled students, and to ensure that states are able to meet those standards that they have themselves set. Do you have a problem with that?
you sure about that? tens of billions from the stimulas went towards it and now they are pushing for 20 billion more.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarIt's an open question whether such a limit would preclude the DoED. The original Office of Education was lobbied for by state educational leaders themselves, in order to collect and disseminate information about education to the states with an eye towards standardizing education. The DoED was established by an act of Congress, our elected representatives, not by some act of federal fiat. Moreover, the mandate of the DoED does not run contrary to state and local control over education. So, what's the problem?
There's no getting around the fact that if we limit the government to the framework of the Constitution we wouldn't have the Department of Education at all. Yes, the money spent on it is a drop in the bucket, but getting rid of it would still money saved. The Department of Education represents the fundamental problem with how Washington DC thinks (as well ...[text shortened]... w. Overstepping the boundries drawn by the Constitution in the name of a righteous cause.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrI imagine they would. And to be philosophically consistent they'd also have to oppose the GI Bill's granting of educational benefits to discharged veterans; if the Federal government has no authority to do anything regarding education, it certainly can't provide money for the education of veterans.
Right, but that doesn't contradict anything I posted above. Much of the money distributed as part of the stimulus was for state-stabilization purposes (e.g., about 2/3 of the money distributed to New York was to help them balance their state budget), and to keep teachers employed and schools open. This seems like a wise policy, when states are dealing with a ...[text shortened]... e able to meet those standards that they have themselves set. Do you have a problem with that?