Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Constitution, as written and intended leaves education to the States, and gives no power to the Federal Government to dictate how we are educated. .

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.

Precisely. There's also no Constitutional requirement for the feds to provide educational funding to the states. The feds hold educational funding out as a carrot to force states to adhere to federal guidelines.

It's just like the BS Section 8 housing requirement in Mass. Towns aren't required to have a certain percentage of low-income housing. It's just that if towns decide to ignore the state guidelines, the towns lose some of their state funding.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.

I do understand that, Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no business imposing mandates on the States per education. It doesn't even have the option to entice the States with the promise of money if it will follow those illegal mandates. As JohnnyD has pointed out, the federales are not constitutionally empowered to tax the people of a State for purposes of imposing educational mandates. The Federal power to tax is for the purpose of doing legitimate Federal Government business, not to interfere with the States doing their business. As JohnnyD points out, this is a scam. And the States, starving for money and in order to recoup some that legitimately belonged to them in the first place, join the unconstitutional scam, and can excuse itself to its people by saying it's just complying with Federal mandates. State politicians can act just as unconstitutionally as their federal henchmen. "Leaving it to the States" would mean that people would have to approve by vote, or by voicing and initiatve. And in this day and age, the people of most States might well agree with your position on the teaching of creationism. Perhaps, in some States, they might also wish to have creationism taught as well as evolution or whatever scientific theories may come to exist.

And you do understand that all this makes your initial statement that Santorum's ammendment attempt "is imposing his religious beliefs through government force" a straw man argument since you are now saying that the government can't force educational mandates on States?

And do you understand that when I speak of the Federal Government, that includes ALL Presidents including Bush2/Nixon, and all Republicans as well as Democrats who are part of that Federal Government? As I have been saying in these threads, BOTH parties are guilty of shifting power from the States to the central government, trashing the Constitution, and advancing the administrative State at the expense of the constitutionally representative republic. Please view the YouTube video I posted in the other Santorum thread to understand what I'm talking about.

The only reason I lean toward Republican candidates at this time is becuase, of the two major parties, it is only in the Republican that there are some movements and congressmen who have the same concerns as I do of returning toward constitutional governance. I truly regret that such sentiments seem to have left the Democrat party.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

it is only in the Republican that there are some movements and congressmen who have the same concerns as I do of returning toward constitutional governance. .

yes, those would be the radical, right wing extremists that we hear so much about...

some of you should reacquaint yourselves with the various definitions of "religion" and then revisit the establishment clause...the founders we pretty smart

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

...the founders were pretty smart

For sure, Thomas Jefferson for one. The first President to attend Harvard, known for having the largest library of the times, knowing the works of "The Thinkers", Aristotle , Cicero, Alegron Sidney, against Monarchy , John Locke, the father of Liberalism, and including Deuteronemy, the book of laws.
They were the right men at the right time.
In mho, no one close to hold a candle to any of them now, or on the horizon.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And you do understand that all this makes your initial statement that Santorum's ammendment attempt "is imposing his religious beliefs through government force" a straw man argument since you are now saying that the government can't force educational mandates on States?

My state takes federal money. He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law. Maybe if the amendment was passed the state would have rejected federal funding, I don't know. No where else in modern public education has the teaching of a religious belief been so close to becoming part of federal law. Theocracy, whether Santorum law or Sharia law or Vishnu law is scary. Sounds like we are both opposed to it since you have clearly stated you oppose any federal involvement in education. Education would only be the start; there should be no federal drug laws, subsidies for business/agriculture or energy, no earmarks (Santorum loves them), etc. Basically, you would prefer the government of 1810.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

My state takes federal money.

Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? I thought it was the peoople's money. Doesn't the Federal Gvt. take the money from the people? Doesn't it take it from the people of your State in the first place, before your State "takes" it back? Isn't Big Brother bribing and coercing your State and its people with their own money?

He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law.

It's a little more complicated than that. Congressmen are, constitutionally, supposed to be representing the will of their constitutents, not imposing beliefs against that will. Nor do they have, on their own, that power. It requires two thirds of Congress to allow consideration of an amendment, and must be ratified by three fourths of the States. Much, much tougher, aparently, than forcing us to by health insurance, even though there is no constitutional provision for the Federal Gvt. to mandate that we must buy anything. Nor is there a provision that the Federal Gvt can "impose" ANY education law. And if Santorum was mispercieving the will of his constituents, he could be unelected.

Maybe if the amendment was passed the state would have rejected federal funding, I don't know. No where else in modern public education has the teaching of a religious belief been so close to becoming part of federal law.

Again, this is the reason why the Constitution does not grant such power to the Federal Gvt. It does not grant the Federal Gvt power to create education law. But, of course, voila, it does, and you seem to be okay with that, except not if it presents theories of creationism.

Theocracy, whether Santorum law or Sharia law or Vishnu law is scary. Sounds like we are both opposed to it since you have clearly stated you oppose any federal involvement in education.

Theocracy!?!? OK, I'm with you, if Santorum was proposing an ammendment to create a theocratic state, he is clearly not fit for office. Of course, as was mentioned, he doesn't have the power to do that. And, you can thank the 17t ammendment for giving Senators the ability to be lone activists. But you're OK with federal involvement in education, just not . . .

Education would only be the start; there should be no federal drug laws, subsidies for business/agriculture or energy, no earmarks (Santorum loves them), etc. Basically, you would prefer the government of 1810.

Education has already been the start of Federal Gvt encroachment on State and individual rights--just as all the other things you mention have been. They have all been part of the progressive creation of, what you seem OK with, the administrative, regulatory, centralized, all-powerful State. And earmarks are the method that Congress can deal with this State. They are the method by which representatives can show their consitutuents that they are actually doing something. The States have now become lobbyists to the Federal Gvt. I was surprised to learn that lobbying the Federal Gvt has only become as massively entrenched and widespread as it is since the 1960's. It took time for the central gvt. to become so powerful, and it has become so powerful that it has become the mecca for handouts, subsidies, and regulations that favor powerful lobbies. I take it you prefer that to whatever you think the government of 1810 is. I prefer the protection of individual liberty that the original Constitution with its separation of powers, limited government, and emphasis on self-government, confers--at any date and time.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

My state takes federal money. .

Yes, after it takes it from us it gives it back to the states as it sees fit.

Gasoline for instance has a Federal tax of 18 and 1/2 cents/gal which it
takes from each of us. Then they spend 15% of it on public transportation
and return the rest to the States, again, as they see fit as each State
fights to get it's share back for their own roads.

Who knows best as to where the money is needed, some Fed Bureacracy
or the State Transportation Agency ?
Doesn't make sense, the state should tax gasoline for it's own needs and
skip the extra costs of a Fed system that takes and returns.

All about returning favors and power.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, after it takes it from us it gives it back to the states as it sees fit.

Gasoline for instance has a Federal tax of 18 and 1/2 cents/gal which it
takes from each of us. Then they spend 15% of it on public transportation
and return the rest to the States, again, as they see fit as each State
fights to get it's share back for their own roads.

Who knows best as to where the money is needed, some Fed Bureacracy
or the State Transportation Agency ?
Doesn't make sense, the state should tax gasoline for it's own needs and
skip the extra costs of a Fed system that takes and returns.

All about returning favors and power.

Ok, so we should have an interstate highway system with giant gaps and delapidated bridges because some states don't have the wealth or where with all to take care of their roads?

The gas tax is outdated anyway. They don't adjust it for inflation so the trust is running out of funds. Envision a pay as you go system where you're taxed on miles driven...it's comming sooner than later.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, so we should have an interstate highway system with giant gaps and delapidated bridges because some states don't have the wealth or where with all to take care of their roads,

-spence

No, I'm saying there is no need for the Feds to collect for the States then
turn around and refund it to them as they see fit. Costly and Controlling.
The Fed can collect what they need for public transportation and interstate.
The States can collect their own gasoline tax for their own needs.

Who knows more about what is needed for a State's road system and infrastructure,Washington or the States? Obvious.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No, I'm saying there is no need for the Feds to collect for the States then
turn around and refund it to them as they see fit. Costly and Controlling.
The Fed can collect what they need for public transportation and interstate.
The States can collect their own gasoline tax for their own needs.

Who knows more about what is needed for a State's road system and infrastructure,Washington or the States? Obvious.

Seems like they do it like this already.

The Fed could tax less and have increased oversight into State funded projects...you'd still have controlling.

If the States increased their taxes to compensate...you'd still be costly.

Perhaps with a little better oversight and no bridges to nowhere pork you could make the system a bit more efficient.

-spence