Would you favor Trump dismissing all Dept. of Education Employees, effectively shutting it down?

[progressive hunter]

My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.

Why must the federal government establish minimum general requirements for schooling? Either I am is failing to see the need or you are failing to communicate it.

Lack of minimal standards would impact transfers of degrees as requirements between the States. It would allow States to reject diplomas from other States in objection to full faith and credit.

There is no prohibition in the constitution for it.

the constitution as per the 10th amendment isnt about what they are banned from doing but what they are delegated/allowed to do,,and education isnt there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Congress in the Constitution only means the Federal Congress. State legislatures are not congress.

wheres it say that???

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Except for the 14th Amendment, of course.

Which can also be abused.

Regardless, it negates your claim that the 10th Amendment means the states are free to ignore the 2nd.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The same applies to the above. If your only argument is that it may be abused, then we might as well all start our own horde and ride the plains seeking pillage targets.

There is a role for a Dept of Ed at the federal level, to supply minimum general requirements for schooling.

My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.

Why must the federal government establish minimum general requirements for schooling? Either I am is failing to see the need or you are failing to communicate it.

Lack of minimal standards would impact transfers of degrees as requirements between the States. It would allow States to reject diplomas from other States in objection to full faith and credit.

There is no prohibition in the constitution for it.

the constitution as per the 10th amendment isnt about what they are banned from doing but what they are delegated/allowed to do,,and education isnt there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Then you have the 14th amendment to comes in and fucks it all up.

 

[martybegan]

Education is different, As all States offer it as a public service, and create their own standards even when education is provided privately.

Government is already involved at the State level, and since education and people can cross State lines with ease, and have the right to live in any State they want, having baseline standards to allow this makes sense.

The constitutional standards for full faith and credit for the constitutional scrutiny change when governments are market participants.

Having different standards does not change anyone's right of freedom of movement among the states.

It may change one's mind about whether or not to move to another state. If that's the basis, why let state have any laws that differ from other states.

By denying educational credentials, A State could make it impossible to make a living for people outside the State.

And if you have to argue ad absurdum, then you are not really arguing the point at all.

"Let a small D of Ed make minimal standards" goes to "MAKE ALL STATE LAWS THE SAME"

weak.

 

[martybegan]

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Except for the 14th Amendment, of course.

Which can also be abused.

Regardless, it negates your claim that the 10th Amendment means the states are free to ignore the 2nd.

They are doing it right now.

But concentrate on destroying federal agencies and making small government supporters look unreasonable.

That's going to win votes.

 

[progressive hunter]

My argument is not that it may be abused. It HAS been abused. Repeatedly. The best indicator of future conduct is past conduct.

Why must the federal government establish minimum general requirements for schooling? Either I am is failing to see the need or you are failing to communicate it.

Lack of minimal standards would impact transfers of degrees as requirements between the States. It would allow States to reject diplomas from other States in objection to full faith and credit.

There is no prohibition in the constitution for it.

the constitution as per the 10th amendment isnt about what they are banned from doing but what they are delegated/allowed to do,,and education isnt there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Then you have the 14th amendment to comes in and fucks it all up.

at no place in the 14th does it repeal any other amendment,,,those parts that assume to do that should be resisted and ignored,,,

 

[martybegan]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers, nor the 4th for automobiles by this logic.

not true,,,

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

what words arent there???computer and cars???thats a ridiculous POV,,unless youre saying they can ban computers and cars,,,which they can if they can get away with it

as for abortions ,,,well there is a part about life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and abortion takes all that away from a person

No, that the 1st doesn't apply to computers and the 4th doesn't apply to cars because those words aren't in the document.

And your second statement is about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers,

Non seq; my statement refers to the limited powers given to Congress, not the limitations placed on actions by the government by the constitution.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't work. Try to be consistent.

I am, and fully - do I need to explain it better, or do you simply refuse to understand the difference?

I don't understand that just because the Constitution doesn't mention "education" that a D of Ed is unconstitutional.

It's actions could be unconstitutional, but what in the Constitution stops congress from allowing the Executive any department whatsoever?

 

[martybegan]

Lack of minimal standards would impact transfers of degrees as requirements between the States. It would allow States to reject diplomas from other States in objection to full faith and credit.

There is no prohibition in the constitution for it.

the constitution as per the 10th amendment isnt about what they are banned from doing but what they are delegated/allowed to do,,and education isnt there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Congress in the Constitution only means the Federal Congress. State legislatures are not congress.

wheres it say that???

Where does it call State legislatures congress?

 

[progressive hunter]

The word "Education"cannot be found in the US constitution; as such Congress has no power to create legislation that pertains to same.

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers, nor the 4th for automobiles by this logic.

not true,,,

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

what words arent there???computer and cars???thats a ridiculous POV,,unless youre saying they can ban computers and cars,,,which they can if they can get away with it

as for abortions ,,,well there is a part about life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and abortion takes all that away from a person

No, that the 1st doesn't apply to computers and the 4th doesn't apply to cars because those words aren't in the document.

And your second statement is about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

you would have to twist a lot to come up with that load of crap,,,

I think you need to go back and read it again

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Except for the 14th Amendment, of course.

Which can also be abused.

Regardless, it negates your claim that the 10th Amendment means the states are free to ignore the 2nd.

They are doing it right now.

For the moment. States can infringe rights faster than the courts can slap their hands for doing so.
Nothing here changes the fact the 14th amendment negates your claim that the 10th Amendment means the states are free to ignore the 2nd.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By denying educational credentials,

you mean a licensing issue?

Educational credentials are not governed by the department of education now.

Education credentials varied even within the state of Texas from institution to institution, Until the state board of education standardized those credentials, and still do it to this day. It happened right before I went to college.

Department of Education does not handle that.

Let a small D of Ed make minimal standards" goes to "MAKE ALL STATE LAWS THE SAME"

weak.

You gave a basis for wanting to require a federal minimum standard. That basis was so that people could move from state to state, And be shielded from varying standards.

If the objective is to shield people from varying standard so that they can easily move to another state, wouldn't that same logic also apply to state laws? There are varying standards among states on variety of issues.

What you end up with is a complete destruction of the sovereignty of states, and one all powerful federal government controlling every single aspect of everyone's lives.

The argument you made for making a minimum standard can be the same argument used to destroy all state sovereignty.

If you have a better argument, I am all ears.

But as it stands, the Department of Education meddling in the affairs of individual states is not warranted or justified under the commerce clause

 

[progressive hunter]

the constitution as per the 10th amendment isnt about what they are banned from doing but what they are delegated/allowed to do,,and education isnt there

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Congress in the Constitution only means the Federal Congress. State legislatures are not congress.

wheres it say that???

Where does it call State legislatures congress?

where does what call it?? legislator and congress are interchangeable,,,

I think they are simply saying that no laws can be made and since fed law overides state law its a mute point,,,NO LAWS CAN BE MADE

 

[martybegan]

Then the first amendment wouldn't be covered for computers, nor the 4th for automobiles by this logic.

not true,,,

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

what words arent there???computer and cars???thats a ridiculous POV,,unless youre saying they can ban computers and cars,,,which they can if they can get away with it

as for abortions ,,,well there is a part about life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and abortion takes all that away from a person

No, that the 1st doesn't apply to computers and the 4th doesn't apply to cars because those words aren't in the document.

And your second statement is about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

you would have to twist a lot to come up with that load of crap,,,

I think you need to go back and read it again

Constitution Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[progressive hunter]

not true,,,

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

what words arent there???computer and cars???thats a ridiculous POV,,unless youre saying they can ban computers and cars,,,which they can if they can get away with it

as for abortions ,,,well there is a part about life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and abortion takes all that away from a person

No, that the 1st doesn't apply to computers and the 4th doesn't apply to cars because those words aren't in the document.

And your second statement is about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

you would have to twist a lot to come up with that load of crap,,,

I think you need to go back and read it again

Constitution Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I was talking about cars and computers

 

[martybegan]

By denying educational credentials,

you mean a licensing issue?

Educational credentials are not governed by the department of education now.

Education credentials varied even within the state of Texas from institution to institution, Until the state board of education standardized those credentials, and still do it to this day. It happened right before I went to college.

Department of Education does not handle that.

Let a small D of Ed make minimal standards" goes to "MAKE ALL STATE LAWS THE SAME"

weak.

You gave a basis for wanting to require a federal minimum standard. That basis was so that people could move from state to state, And be shielded from varying standards.

If the objective is to shield people from varying standard some on stage so that they can easily move to another state, wouldn't that same logic also apply to state laws? There are varying standards among states on variety of issues.

What you end up with is a complete destruction of the sovereignty of states, and they won all powerful federal government controlling every single aspect of everyone's lives.

The argument you made for making a minimum standard can be the same argument used to destroy all state sovereignty.

If you have a better argument, I am all ears.

But as it stands, they Department of Education meddling in the affairs of individual states is not warranted or justified under the commerce clause

Most of those laws only apply (or should only apply) when you are physically present in the State. So I don't accept that allowing a small Dept of Ed forces all States to comply with the same laws and ruins and destroys the entire nation.

Argumentum ad abusrdum.

 

[martybegan]

Why not? The words aren't there. Why should they be protected?

When an argument is simplified, often simple responses ruin it.

The argument is better when it comes to STOPPING States from regulating something, like abortion, not when letting the feds have a say to allow State to State relations to go smoothly.

Which was the original intent of the Constitution in the First place.

what words arent there???computer and cars???thats a ridiculous POV,,unless youre saying they can ban computers and cars,,,which they can if they can get away with it

as for abortions ,,,well there is a part about life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and abortion takes all that away from a person

No, that the 1st doesn't apply to computers and the 4th doesn't apply to cars because those words aren't in the document.

And your second statement is about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

you would have to twist a lot to come up with that load of crap,,,

I think you need to go back and read it again

Constitution Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I was talking about cars and computers

And you didn't admit you were wrong on the source document for your Statement.

You are welcome.

 

[bodecea]

There is no Department of Education in the Constitution. It never should have been created.

Let the States run education in their own States.

Shut down the unneeded DOE.

Can you list any of the Cabinet positions mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[martybegan]

Tough sell. Absolutism on the 10th can lead to States being able to fuck around with gun laws and ignore the 2nd.

Or worse ignore the 1st, because it only bans congress from doing things.

States rights only can go so far before it bites you in the ass.

again not true,,,,
the 2nd is very specific,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,,,
and it doesnt specify state or fed congress,,,just congress

Congress in the Constitution only means the Federal Congress. State legislatures are not congress.

wheres it say that???

Where does it call State legislatures congress?

where does what call it?? legislator and congress are interchangeable,,,

I think they are simply saying that no laws can be made and since fed law overides state law its a mute point,,,NO LAWS CAN BE MADE

Congress in the Constitution is:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

and here is article one talking about Congress and State legislatures separately.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, that the 1st doesn't apply to computers and the 4th doesn't apply to cars because those words aren't in the document.

This non-seq was absurd the first time you said it - why did you repeat it?