02 Aug 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, so they hate our troops?
I 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.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrIt's not an open question. It is only open to ignoring what the Constitution actually says.
It'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, no ...[text shortened]... DoED does not run contrary to state and local control over education. So, what's the problem?
02 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrAs I asked in the original post:
It'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, no ...[text shortened]... DoED does not run contrary to state and local control over education. So, what's the problem?
Second question, what does "to the States respectively, or to the people" mean? Does it mean that the Federal Legislative and Executive branches have that power since they are the elected reprsentatives of the people? Somehow I don't think that's what it means since that would give the power right back to the Federal Government which the 10th amendment is saying does not have the power.
Just because Congress did it doesn't mean they have the right. It just means they can do anything they want as long as no one calls them on it.
Edit:
I see nothing wrong with the GI bill. The government is free to set up moneys for our soldiers.
02 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYes, it is an open question, because the people exercise their power and political will through the actions of their elected representative. That's the sense in which we're a democratic republic. So, if congress passes legislation allowing the creation of a department, then that department is created via the public will, and if the activities of that department do not directly contradict the Constitution, then that department is consistent with the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not directly mention education, we are free to institute, regulate, standardize it as we, the people, via our representatives at the local, state and federal levels, see fit.
It's not an open question. It is only open to ignoring what the Constitution actually says.
02 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarWhere does the Constitution explicitly give Congress the power to pay for the education of veterans who have finished their service?
[/b]As I asked in the original post:
Second question, what does "to the States respectively, or to the people" mean? Does it mean that the Federal Legislative and Executive branches have that power since they are the elected reprsentatives of the people? Somehow I don't think that's what it means since that would give the power right back to the Federal Go ...[text shortened]... nothing wrong with the GI bill. The government is free to set up moneys for our soldiers.
I answered that question in your original post, but you can't seem to understand the answer.
02 Aug 10
So the 10th amendment says that the powers not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the States and the Federal government according to your interpreation.
You'd think that the framers would actually come out and state it like that if this is what they meant. Unless of course you believe what was stated earlier that the 10th admendment was put into place to dupe people.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarNo, it isn't. And the original GI Bill was passed to cover those already serving who were drafted or enlisted prior to such benefit being awarded. Thus, it can't even be argued that it encouraged enlistment.
I think it is pretty much understood that soldiers are supposed to be paid. This is a form of pay.
If the Federal government cannot fund education at any level (as you are suggesting), then they can't fund education for veterans.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThey got a raise. The Federal government is not funding education institutions. The government is giving money to the soldiers to spend on education. Trying to say that taking federal moneys (awarded to individuals) is the same thing as the government giving money directly to the institutions is ridiculous. I'm not saying that's not how the government sees it. I'm sure the Federal government would love to use this as a form of telling institutions what to do. What I am saying is that it is totally wrong and Unconstitutional.
No, it isn't. And the original GI Bill was passed to cover those already serving who were drafted or enlisted prior to such benefit being awarded. Thus, it can't even be argued that it encouraged enlistment.
If the Federal government cannot fund education at any level (as you are suggesting), then they can't fund education for veterans.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarNo. The powers not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the States and the people. The people exercise their will either individually, collectively, in non-political forms, or politically through participation in the electoral process. More specifically, the people exercise their will at the local, state and federal level (particularly, from an historical point of view, via the House of Representatives).
So the 10th amendment says that the powers not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the States and the Federal government according to your interpreation.
You'd think that the framers would actually come out and state it like that if this is what they meant. Unless of course you believe what was stated earlier that the 10th admendment was put into place to dupe people.
02 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarNo, it isn't. It's giving institutions money to educate veterans. As regards the GI Bill:
They got a raise. The Federal government is not funding education institutions. The government is giving money to the soldiers to spend on education. Trying to say that taking federal moneys (awarded to individuals) is the same thing as the government giving money directly to the institutions is ridiculous. I'm not saying that's not how the government see institutions what to do. What I am saying is that it is totally wrong and Unconstitutional.
This program will pay eligible individuals:
•tuition & fees directly to the school not to exceed the maximum in-state tuition & fees at a public Institution of Higher Learning (Emphasis added)
http://www.gibill.va.gov/gi_bill_info/benefits.htm
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarOut of morbid curiosity, which educational institutions in particular do you think the Department of Education currently funds?
They got a raise. The Federal government is not funding education institutions. The government is giving money to the soldiers to spend on education. Trying to say that taking federal moneys (awarded to individuals) is the same thing as the government giving money directly to the institutions is ridiculous. I'm not saying that's not how the government see ...[text shortened]... institutions what to do. What I am saying is that it is totally wrong and Unconstitutional.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by Eladar'Small' and 'all powerful' are not mutually exclusive. That's exactly what we had a revolution over; the government was too small and too powerful.
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 ...[text shortened]... nt design. An all powerful Federal government is not what is described in the Constitution.