Top teachers union under fire as lawmakers push to strip union of unique federal charter: 'Lost their way'

With the National Education Association being thrust into the spotlight after increasing its public opposition against the Trump administration and having been accused of financially backing far-left agenda items, two Republicans are taking steps to revoke its federal charter.

The National Education Association holds a rare distinction in Washington, D.C., as the only labor union granted a federal charter, a status it received from Congress in 1906, and critics have argued that the functions of the NEA then and now are much different.

Republican Reps. Buddy Carter and Mary Miller have been vocal critics of the NEA in recent years and are calling for that charter to be revoked, a move that Carter tells Fox News Digital would be "significant" and "carries with it a lot of clout."

"Let's face it, the NEA is nothing more than a liberal political organization masquerading as a teachers union," Carter added. "Remember in 1906, Congress gave them this charter to elevate the profession. They're not elevating the profession right now."

The NEA has been actively opposing President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, labeling him a "dictator" and organizing protests nationwide against ICE.

"You only have to look at their actions here recently to see that they have turned into a liberal political organization," Carter told Fox News Digital. "Calling President Trump's policies fascism, calling for allowing biological men to participate and grow sports, going against the Anti-Defamation League, which is trying to stamp out anti-Semitism. All the policies that they're enacting, 98% of their donations are going to Democrats now, and the liberal Democrats. And then, of course, what they've done in Minneapolis and in Minnesota — all of those actions lead us to believe that they should be, that their charter should be pulled."

Thank you for posting Libloather.

The only union that the states have recognized in the Constitution is the union of states.

I surmise that federal lawmakers who really didn't understand the federal government's constitutionally limited powers recognized teacher unions in 1906 to try to get reelected.

In fact, and with all due respect to parents, if parents were making sure that their children were being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Constitution's drafters had intended for those powers to be understood, then students would be able to explain to their teachers that President Thomas Jefferson, in a State of the Union address, also Justice Joseph Story, had indicated that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to dictate, regulate, frustrate, or tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate education.

The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphasis added]. —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. (Jefferson indicated that Congress cannot tax and spend in the name of intrastate schooling imo.)
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with [all emphases added] the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen [all emphases added], under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.