Replies

re:
"..Visit the Palace Of Reason.."

BWAHAHAHAA

Thanks for the laugh.

And wonderful insight also, that anyone [like Jefferson] that
disagrees with your purported vast knowledge of our
forefather's intent, is an idiot. [palace of reason....hahaha]

Rather than purported, it is perverted; twisted, your assumption
that the requiring of standards of quality should be deemed
"unconstitutional". I would agree [as I stated], that there has been
an exaggeration of the intent, but the basis is on solid ground.

I said:
"..It's the exaggeration of the intent; the providing of certain "benefits"
that do not truly of benefit all citizens. It is the providing of certain
services that are not promoting the general welfare, but only the
bank accounts of those distributing those "benefits" [ala' Joe Kennedy
and Mass Oil], that we lose sight of our Constitution's intent....."

You apparently missed that?

And this continual denouncing of the concept of public schooling;
the concept that all public schools conform to universal standards
of required study to provide each American child with an equal
opportunity to succeed, is ludicrous. It serves only to give
"conservatives" the appearance of being self-serving and careless
of concern for this Nation's future.

No child or person should be given benefit over another and
neither should be denied benefit. To demand universal and
conformed educational process of our public schooling, is the
correct action; you are free to pay for any other private education
you may prefer.

And there should be the teaching of Constitutional rights in
our schools. If that includes the teaching of the wrongness
of prejudicial attitudes, it is conforming closer to the teaching
of the Constitutional rights of others, than your idea of what
should be taught.

Thanks.

And wonderful insight also, that anyone [like Jefferson] that disagrees with your purported vast knowledge of our forefather's intent, is an idiot. [palace of reason....hahaha]

You're a real rhetorical muscleman, aren't you? Someone disagrees with you, and you immediately start calling names and putting words into other people's mouths. You must have been a real delight in the schoolyard at recess.

As for your claim that "the basis is on solid ground," I have two suggestions:

Read Cato's Letters and the Federalist Papers. Don't just make unsubstantiable claims; learn your source material. It will test your intellectual honesty, but then, we're here to learn, aren't we?
Think hard about this: if some proposed "benefit" or "standard" really was to the benefit of everyone, why would the government have to make it compulsory, such that those who disagree and want no part of it are turned into criminals subject to the force of law?

Of course, it's possible that you've merely misunderstood the impact of the Preamble to the Constitution, which a) awards no powers to any branch of government, b) speaks of a body of general desiderata in extremely flowery language, c) has been deemed by Constitutional scholars throughout history to be merely decorative. You wouldn't be the first.

As for the phrase "general welfare" in Article I, James Madison himself, the Father of the Constitution, wrote that the import of that phrase was circumscribed by the seventeen specifically awarded powers of Section 8. At the time of the Framing, there were no dissents from that view among the Framers. You can look that up too.

It serves only to give "conservatives" the appearance of being self-serving and careless of concern for this Nation's future.

Conservatives careless about the direction of America's future? Are you sure you're on the right discussion board? The URL for Democratic Underground is http://www.democraticunderground.com. Glad to be of service.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com