Give Parents School Choice

With the left doing everything it can to disrupt and terrorize the streets of major cities, promising to give all illegal aliens a path to citizenship, and working overtime to take down President Trump by every means possible, the cost of letting Biden win in November is becoming more evident. Critical differences between Trump and Biden make giving Trump four more years essential to the future of America.

Conservatives hold onto the hope that America’s silent majority are ready to provide an encore Trump victory in 2020. But even if Trump wins, we may very well be on the verge of losing the culture war that puts the future of America in doubt. The left is using their hold on our public schools to mold the thinking of our next generation of voters—our children.

President Trump is calling for the schools to open in the Fall, and he’s talking about supporting “school choice.” When schools are balking at opening and want more money, giving all parents school choice and the funds to go with it is a potentially winning issue for November. Is it not time to stop forcing parents to send students to underperforming schools dedicated to indoctrinating their children in leftist thinking?

Minority parents are crying out for school choice and the funds to make it happen. Parents of all races want their children in schools that give them the best chance of success. It’s time to end direct funding for public schools and let all schools compete for students on the basis of their results. In Sweden, school choice has been in force since 1982. Fail to produce results, and you lose students. Produce results and more students will come.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said what conservatives have wanted for years: "If schools aren't going to reopen, they shouldn’t get the funds.Give it to the families to decide" Let the fund allocations follow the students to the school they choose to attend. That’s school choice!

At a time when American public schools choose not to open and continue to languish and underperform, it’s clear that school choice—vouchers and charter schools—can increase parental satisfaction and involvement, make public schools more accountable, and lead to the hiring and keeping of better teachers. Results and competition should matter.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important ruling supporting school choice for parents. In upholding school choice programs without discriminating against religious education, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision regarding Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, advanced school choice stating: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

It’s time to give low income, minority parents the choices wealthier citizens already enjoy. As Senator Tim Scott (SC) asserted: “In our society . . . we spend so much time on the ‘root causes’ and the disadvantages that we forget to talk about the solutions and the advantage that we have over the rest of the world. . . . It is absolutely essential that we have quality education in every ZIP Code, especially the poorest ZIP Codes in America. That is the path forward.”

With public schools refusing to open and provide their essential service, it’s time to free up their funds to let parents find schools that will. It’s time for school choice!

The left is using their hold on our public schools [??? emphasis added] to mold the thinking of our next generation of voters—our children.

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

To rescue their schools, voters need to start the process of peacefully “kicking” the unconstitutionally big federal government out of their local schools in November.

From related threads…

More specifically, President Thomas Jefferson, in a State of the Union address, had clearly indicated that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution to give Congress the express power to dictate policy, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate schooling — SOMETHING THAT THE STATES HAVE NEVER DONE!

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but 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 [emphases added].”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
”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.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people, including community schools in this example, uniquely to the states and the people, not the federal government.

”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Justice Brandeis later put it this way about the "laboratories of democracy," the unique powers of the sovereign states to serve the people, depending on what the legal majority citizen voters of a given state want.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
Note that constitutional limits on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.

Again, the early states clearly left it up to voters to exercise their 10th Amendment (10A) power to run their community schools as voters see fit.

But since we see little evidence of citizens' 10A powers at work anywhere these days under the shadow of the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification federal government, except when corrupt, desperate Democratic state leaders abuse their 10A powers to oppress the people to try to get rid of Trump, what happened to 10A?

Let's first blow the dust off of 10A by considering the Supreme Court's reasonable clarification of the federal government's constitutionally very limited powers versus the vast 10A power of the states to serve the people in United States v. Butler in the 1930s.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”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.

But then we had a “little” scandal regarding 10A-protected state sovereignty. More specifically, using inappropriate terms like "concept" and "implicit," FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices scandalously effectively "repealed" 10A (imo) with the following politically correct statement in Wickard v. Filburn in the 1940s shown below,

"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

In other words, desperate federal Democratic and RINO lawmakers are using corrupt Supreme Court's politically correct license to ignore 10A-protected state sovereignty, to use community schools as federal indoctrination centers so that students don't forget to vote Democrat and demand constitutionally non-existent federal entitlements after they graduate.

The remedy for corrupt, unconstitutionally big federal government…

Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats and RINOs home in November!

Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.

"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy, [...]” —Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
- "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.
- "13th Amendment, Section 1:
  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
- "16th Amendment:
  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
- "It’s politically correct, under the Democratic Party and its tyrant judges, to use your voting power to make your fellow citizens involuntary servants." —me
- "The Democratic elite define a "pro-choice" democracy as being able to vote for your preferred master." —me
"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment not only effectively politically repealed the 3/4 state supermajority requirement of the Constitution’s Article V for ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution imo, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution now prevailing under Democratic judicial tyranny, but also consider this. That amendment also effectively nullified Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers along with the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes." —me
"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 constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes. Belonging to a political party means that you are a subject, not a member.” —me
"Patriots need to support PDJT in demanding that Congress moves "April 15" tax day to the day before election day." —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me

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.