I only hear facts and reason. One of those pesky facts is that if the Federal government can require and state school system to pass it's guidelines then it is defacto in charge of education...even more so if it dispenses federal education dollars (or highway funds etc.) based on meeting those requirements.
Discrimination in Mississippi isn't a matter of education but discrimination. The federal government doesn't have to control education to control discrimination. The bill of rights applies to the state via the 14th amendment but infers no powers to the federal government other those that are "necessary and proper". Control of education is not necessary and it certainly isn't proper.
People do not have the constitutional right to happiness and I have trouble believing any reasonable person could honestly suggest that they do. I have heard liberals suggest such things of course. What we do (or are supposed to have) have is a Government of enumerated and limited powers so that individuals have the liberty to make themselves happy.
I don't exactly know what you mean when you say "the state fails the people" and based on earlier statements that could mean anything from not paying for their medicine to not providing enough "free" somethings. Certainly if a state isn't protecting a citizens rights then there is a place there for the Federal government to do so. Part of those rights are those included in the 9th and 10th amendments.
Whatever the current state of any given government entity is now, for the most part many were created to address a concern that good people had for their fellow citizens. Those concerns will not dissipate simply because we say they should.
There are people concerned with global warming, arctic drilling, three toed sloth habitats, alien abductions, and the "truth" about 911. Not all concerns are valid and certainly not all of them have a government solution. Only because government usurped so much power do people actually think to go there with such concerns.
If there is a need to make modification to the Constitution, so be it, that is why the founders created the amendment process, but don't think that change is not needed or we can wholesale reverse everything that has happened since 1791.
So you really do think that we have a living constitution and that wide sweeping powers can be given to government without any constitutional authority. Whatever system of government that may be it is no longer a constitutional republic and I don't think you have really thought about what that means. I would much rather be faced with having to go through the monumental effort of passing a constitutional amendment to do something important then be faced with the prospect of eventual tyranny. Those are the only two valid choices.
The Department of Ed administered compliance in Mississippi schools due to segregation. That was their job. In that particular case it was a good thing. That is also a case of the state government failing citizens. I would despute the "control' piece again, I am not saying that the fed dictates everything, but certain educational standards that are good for competing in the 21st century should be met for all citizens. Whether that comes in the form of an agreement between the states, a Federal program or agency is irrelevant.
As usual with absolutist you swing from black to white, when real life is gray. That is not a conservative or liberal issue, that is fact.
Are certain abuses occurring in our government, certainly, and at this time it is quite clear that the bad is out weighing the good. Does that mean that we then go through and chunk everything wholesale? No, that would be irresponsible and to be honest if done too rapidly disastrous.
As far as what are viable concerns, the founders allowed for a Republic so decisions could be made about what was important at any given time. Otherwise they would have presented a static document and left no legislative process, since everything would have been finished in 1791. That was not the case was it.
The things the Fed does well, like the CDC, FAA and such need to be left, albeit in a form that performs the need functions only and adds benefit to our nation.
Now my question, because I always find this interesting. Do you dismiss the Declaration of Independence. It is in essence the lead in to the Constitution, stating those rights that later where defended in the Constitution itself. The right to the pursuit of happiness is in there. No where did I say that any one had a right to happiness, but nothing should impede them from the pursuit. You are knowledgeable on such things, certainly you know the difference between guaranteeing happiness and safe guarding the right to at least have a shot at it
The Constitution is the most important of out legal documents, but it does not stand alone. It has stood the test of time because it does interact with us, and our history. While I believe the whole living Constitution meme as it is used today is in error, it is indeed a document the founders created to live with us and guide us for all time. If that is not the essence of living, I don't know what is, and I find it insulting to great men to think otherwise. They maybe dead, but their work lives on. I would think given your position on the importance of returning to the Constitution you would agree, yes?