NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Which is consistent with wrongheaded conservative dogma: where income should determine the quality of healthcare and education, and those too poor to afford either should do without, the consequence of having ‘failed’ to be successful.
The neo-Social Darwinism advocated by most conservatives is one of the more reprehensible aspects of the American right.
the constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that everyone will achieve it.
Not everyone can be Oprah, what you make of your life it up to you, not the government.
The pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution, homeschooled.
Promoting the general welfare is, however, and you if don't believe that getting as many Americans as practically possible EDUCATED does not promote the general welfare, well,
go ride your dinosaurs with Jesus.
Promoting the general welfare does not mean fund the general welfare. Promote is a word that means to encourage.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
James Madison is dead.
If you want to argue that a well educated populace is not a vital national interest, let's hear it.
No, it's not a vital national interest. And even if it were, that doesn't mean the taxpayers should foot the bill.
That's besides the fact we have more kids going to college than ever, and that we are in no shortage of students. In fact, many college graduates can't even find a job today.
So you disagree. I'd say education is one of our most vital interests. Congress is explicitly authorized to levy taxes to fund the general welfare,
which implies that Congress also has the authority to determine what is in fact the general welfare.