Bill to Improve Education in America: Rand Paul Introduces S.4979

[TNHarley]

Nothing prevents a Dept of Education

Thats the whole point. It isnt even mentioned.
Thats what makes it unconstitutional.
You swore to defend a a document you dont even understand?

You really don’t understand the Constitution do you?
It is only four pages long and does not provide point by point This is allowed, This isn’t

It gives the federal govt a specific list of powers. It even specifically states that anything else is left to the states.
Its called 3rd grade civics

Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has

It has a limited set of powers.
You are an idiot that cant read basic English.

 

[TNHarley]

Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has

Probably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers. The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages. They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.

It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to do

Says the guy that believes in a type of totalitarian govt based off 12th century England.

Actually it is you trapped in the 18th century

Th

So you are saying people today are too stupid to read? lol
Good point, i reckon.

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.

The constitution was designed to "strictly limit" government.

You make two good points, because Art 3 makes no mention of "judicial review", that was case law under John Marshall.

The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.

The constitution was designed to "strictly limit" government.

You make two good points, because Art 3 makes no mention of "judicial review", that was case law under John Marshall.

The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.

Promote the general welfare through its enumerated powers. It even SAYS THAT in art 1 sec 8

 

[meaner gene]

They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.

It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to do

Actually 18th century minds are telling us what to do in broad terms, but leaving it for 21st century minds to fit their intentions into a modern world.

Back in the day, the press required the person to have an actual printing press, printing ink on paper. Now the press includes people with a BLOG.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I like Rand, good critical thinker, he should be on TEE VEE telling the truth.

Trump's second term Fauci would be in Gitmo

 

[Natural Citizen]

Show where the constitution says anything about strictly limiting Government

We the People limit Government

You have to read the blueprint for the constitution, as referenced by its authors, The Federalist. Those would be all of those pages explaining this that meaner gene said didn't exist, heh heh. I don't think meaner gene knows what he's getting himself into here, but it'll be funny to watch when he realizes.

For instance, let us learn from Feseralist #45, by Madison, emphasizing that adoption of the Constitution would create a government of enumerated, and therefore strictly limited, powers. Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined... [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."

 

[meaner gene]

The scope of the Department ofEducation needs to be expanded to control those States that do a shit job

That would be my take on "equal protection" combined with "privileges and immunities"

 

[rightwinger]

Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has

Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.

The constitution was designed to "strictly limit" government.

Not the electorate.

Show where the constitution says anything about strictly limiting Government

We the People limit Government

You have to read the blueprint for the constitutio, as referenced by its authors, The Federalist. Those would be all of those pages explaining this that meaner gene said didn't exist, heh heh. I don't think meaner gene knows what he's getting himself into here, but it'll be funny to watch when he finally does. Heh heh.


For instance, let us learn from Feseralist #45, by Madison, emphasizing that adoption of the Constitution would create a government of enumerated, and therefore strictly limited, powers. Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined... [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."

Sorry
Not playing

Dept of Education has been around 40 years. Show me a single case where it was declared unconstitutional and we can start from there

 

[meaner gene]

The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.

Promote the general welfare through its enumerated powers. It even SAYS THAT in art 1 sec 8

Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution. Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates. An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.

 

[TNHarley]

They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.

It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to do

Actually 18th century minds are telling us what to do in broad terms, but leaving it for 21st century minds to fit their intentions into a modern world.

Back in the day, the press required the person to have an actual printing press, printing ink on paper. Now the press includes people with a BLOG.

They left an amendment process.
OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Sorry
Not playing

Dept of Education has been around 40 years. Show me a single case where it was declared unconstitutional and we can start from there

I just did.

You have to play. The Founders themselves left us the blueprint for the constitution in the Federalist. They described it as such specifically. And they did so because they knoew people down the road would be making the argument you're making here.

Come on, RWer, you're smarter tha nthat.

Sure, they've got away with it. Heck, Republicans used to run on abolishing the Department of Education. Not any more. Now your establishment Republicans are no different than the other side of the big government gravy train.

 

[TNHarley]

The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.

Promote the general welfare through its enumerated powers. It even SAYS THAT in art 1 sec 8

Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution. Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates. An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[Natural Citizen]

They left an amendment process.
OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.

I got to chuckling at the mention of Wickard/Filburn earlier. Heh heh.

The funny thing about that was that the court decided that a farmer growing his wheat for purely personal use still affected Interstate Commerce, presumably by not participating in it. lolol. The SCOTUS has been utterly abusing the Commerce Clause for decades. Crazy...

That's especially why the founders were so strategic in giving the judicial the very least power of the branches. Basically the courts have been giving themselves power. Largely due to a derelict congress, but still...

 

[meaner gene]

Madison said: ...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."

Which is why the federalists papers do not carry the weight you would give them.

Modern reality dictates how the text applies to the modern world.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry
Not playing

Dept of Education has been around 40 years. Show me a single case where it was declared unconstitutional and we can start from there

I just did.

You have to play. The Founders themselves left us the blueprint for the constitution in the Federalist. They described it as such specifically. And they did so because they knoew people down the road would be making the argument you're making here.

Come on, RWer, you're smarter tha nthat.

Sure, they've got away with it. Heck, Republicans used to run on abolishing the Department of Education. Not any more. Now your establishment Republicans are no different than the other side of the big government gravy train.

I’ve got 40 years of Dept of Education that says you are wrong

Show me a single case declaring it unconstitutional. Otherwise, it is Constitutional

 

[meaner gene]

They left an amendment process.
OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.

Even the most wordy of amendments fall far short of defining what they meant, leaving "wiggle room" as not to restrict their meaning from expanding into more modern times.

Imagine if the 2nd amendment said, the right to bear flintlocks.

 

[TNHarley]

Madison said: ...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."

Which is why the federalists papers do not carry the weight you would give them.

Modern reality dictates how the text applies to the modern world.

The federalist papers establishes intent. Which might not be too important to federal supremacists, i reckon.

 

[TNHarley]

They left an amendment process.
OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.

Even the most wordy of amendments fall far short of defining what they meant, leaving "wiggle room" as not to restrict their meaning from expanding into more modern times.

Imagine if the 2nd amendment said, the right to bear flintlocks.

Its called an amendment. A constitutional amendment.
The document isnt "alive" like you federal supremacists try to claim.

 

[meaner gene]

Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution. Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates. An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.

Where does the Constitution say that?

Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.

The constitution doesn't waste time saying what logic dictates doesn't need to be said.