Replies

"We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.

And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

"Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.

Most of these lawsuits take place in state courts. The Federal government has no authority over the tort system of states.

"On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.

The Constitution does not mention paying you doctor bills.

"One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.

Not only is this not mentioned in the Constitution, but for the first 150 years of our Republic there were no laws against drug possession.

"That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

This seems clearly contrary to clear statements in the Constitution. An amendment would probably be required.

And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

People who mindlessly chant this particular mantra simply do not know their American history. Public education was extremely important to all the founders. During the Constitutional Convention, there was a proposal to created a national university. This was defeated not because the founders were against public education, but because they wanted to leave the matter to the states.

It's no accident that every state in the union has a system of public colleges and universities. The Founding Fathers led by example. Thomas Jefferson started the University of Virginia. Other framers of the Constitution helped found the public university systems in their states. People interested in knowing the truth about the founders' attitude toward public education should read: "Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania," written in 1749 by one of the greatest early Americans, Benjamin Franklin. He founded the University of Pennsylvania. Click this link to read it for yourselves.

And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

Nowhere - and it would be better for education if the Dept. of Education was dismantled.

Most of these lawsuits take place in state courts.

Many do take place in state courts but most of the ones that are most damaging to small business are Federal and it is the Federal regulations and requirements that screw up a business' overhead. (Been there, done that - once you go over 15 employees, the Fed regulations are destructive.)

The Constitution does not mention paying you doctor bills

Nope, it doesn't. The key part I picked up on was "can choose and afford private health care coverage." As opposed to Hillary Care and hopefully in support of small businesses, or even individuals, being able to buy insurance as a group so they can actually afford it.

Not only is this not mentioned in the Constitution, but for the first 150 years of our Republic there were no laws against drug possession.

I don't know - drug trade could easily come under the auspices of regulating commerce. And point of correction, the earliest anti-drug laws I'm aware of at a Federal level were in the mid-1870's. Opium was regulated at the state level first and then made illegal for personal consumption at the Federal level. Earlier than that, a drug standards act was passed ostensibly to monitor what substances were being shipped in but also to block them.

This seems clearly contrary to clear statements in the Constitution. An amendment would probably be required.

I'm not so sure. I've had problems buying the full faith and credit clause forces other states to recognize gay marriage if one state does.

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Now, full faith and credit means that states have to recognize other states court judgements. If Vermont has a law that says gays can legally be married, other states do not have to recognize that marriage if it violate 'public policy' of said state or existing legislation ( "[The Full Faith and Credit clause does not] compel a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate," under Pacific Employers v. Industrial Accident Comm., 306 U.S. 493, 501) and Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 held that one state does not have to recognize laws that reflect "policy of hostility to the public Acts" to that state. It will be interesting to watch the fallout, supporters of marriage as a union between a man and a woman have a shot at winning.

If not, the little "and the effect thereof." clause should give Congress the basis it needs to pass the marriage stature, like the controversial Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bubba.

Ultimately, a marriage amendment is a bad idea. Dangerous to amend the Constitution to regulate moral ideas. That firmly belongs in the private sector.