God is Not in the Constitution (Barf)

The Village Voice ^ | 06/28/02 | Nat Hentoff

[RonF]

"Consider: A single woman with no children has part of her paycheck taken away by the federal government. That government then uses some of the property they took from her to hire a Vice Grand Poohbah of the Department of Education, to fund worthless federal programs with vaguely catchy names like "Head Start", to buy ketchup to give to schoolchildren for lunch, and of course to give lotsa money with mega-strings attached to various State education departments, etc. Remember, she has no children. Why was her property taken away by the federal government? For "public use", of course - education of (in this case other peoples') children."

You are guaranteed representation in the government that taxes you and allocates those taxes. You are not (and cannot be) guaranteed that the programs those taxes are spent for are efficacious. The Founding Fathers envisioned that the public would take care of that themselves through the electoral process. Of course, it will help immensely if the populace is able to read and write, and to think logically, and is able to tell the difference between facts and empty rhetoric. This ability is provided through education. Thus, it is a general good that the public be educated, much as it is a general good that roads be built and maintained, that harbors be dredged, etc. On this basis, governments have established and funded public education. Whether or not it is being run correctly is a different matter, but the public can deal with that by putting elected officials in place (or even running for office themselves) that will make the requisite changes.

Thus, the fact that the woman in your example is childless is immaterial. Education taxes are not tuition payments. If this example held, none of us should pay taxes to support any services we do not use, and all government functions would be funded out of excise taxes and user fees. It was tried before, and it didn't work.

But, in fact, we all pay taxes to support services that don't benefit us directly, but benefit us indirectly. For example: public health. We pay taxes that in part are used to immunize children of families too poor to afford to pay for it themselves. So, I'm paying for some kid that's not my own to get immunized. Why? How does this benefit me? Outside of the spiritual benefits, of course, which may well be the most important.

Because if we have reservoirs of non-immunized children in our cities, we could have outbreaks of communicable diseases that could cause said disease to spread throughout a broad region. This would lead to civil unrest, increases in crime and the money necessary to suppress it, etc. Also, the diseases could directly affect the affluent as well as the poor. Even though the affluent may be immunized, a large pool of infected people can become a breeding ground for new diseases, or for mutated forms of the epidemic disease (think influenza, or AIDS).

"Is she compensated? I don't think so."

I have generally heard this amendment invoked as the basis by which property taken by eminent domain must be paid for at market rate. I've never heard anyone say that it forbids general taxation. Has this theory come before the Supremes?

Again, the theory behind public education means that she is compensated by the production of a better educated population. This means that 1) they can make more informed and intelligent choices in the election of public officials, and 2) our industries are more productive because of a better educated workforce. I confess that I don't know if point 2 is actually invoked in the justification of public education, but I believe it to be true. In any case, this benefits everyone.

[RonF]

I forgot to add:

It was not clear to me from your statement that you were referring only to the Federal government's funding of public education, and not the states.

[RonF]

Sorry. It was not clear to me from your statement that you were talking only about Federal involvement in public education. Has the validity of using the Commerce clause in the Constitution to do this come before the Supremes?

[Dimensio]

Yep. Clearly the US Constitution, by using a standard dating convertion of the time of its writing, is establishing Christianity as the offical relgion of the country.

[Dimensio]

I just read your profile page and noted your list of "favorite" bands. You would be better off if you just hot-injected a vial of hydroflouric acid into both ears.

Such astounding argument skill, Keven. By insulting the person's taste in music you have clearly shown your superior debating ability as well as the superiority of your position.

[Dimensio]

Changing meaning-reality via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs is called psychosis!

I suppose that you would know all about psychosis. Rather than insulting his argument, perhaps you could construct a rational response to argue against it?

[RonF]

Did you learn to write in a private school or public one?

I must say I have rarely seen more English words strung together without actually communicating a concept.

[f.Christian]

A rational response to you(irrational)...impossible!

[Maceman]

Has the validity of using the Commerce clause in the Constitution to do this come before the Supremes?

My understanding is that stretching the Commerce Clause to cover all manner of federal involvement in our lives became SOP for the Supreme Court during the New Deal.

But I wish that someone would specifically raise the issue before the Supreme Court with respect to education. If the Commerce Clause can be expanded to cover local schools, then I would like to hear the rationale. It would be amusing -- though in a very sad way. Kind of like watching Dr. Strangelove, but with more serious real world implications.

Caleraly, one cannot rationally claim that the curriculum in a local school comes under the category of comermce between the states.

[Dimensio]

A rational response to you(irrational)...impossible!

I'm confused. Even if I am irrational, how does that prevent you from composing a rational response? Or are you saying that it is impossible for you to compose a rational response, and then calling me irrational as a side note?

[7thson]

Neither is "seperation of church and state."

[f.Christian]

Yeah one of us is crazy!

[Dr. Frank fan]

You are guaranteed representation in the government that taxes you and allocates those taxes. You are not (and cannot be) guaranteed that the programs those taxes are spent for are efficacious.

But you are guaranteed that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Also notice that between you and me in the previous two paragraphs, only my phrasing actually comes from that little thing called the "Constitution". What does that say to you?

Thus, it is a general good that the public be educated,

Right, or a "public use".

On this basis, governments have established and funded public education.

Right, and some people do not receive "just compensation". I'm with you.

If this example held, none of us should pay taxes to support any services we do not use,

Imagine that, what a horrible world that would be. None of us would have to pay for things we didn't use. Just horrible. I'm shuddering just thinking about it.

I've never heard anyone say that it forbids general taxation.

If you'll read closely I never said that it forbids general taxation. Try again.

Again, the theory behind public education means that she is compensated by the production of a better educated population.

That's a swell "theory".

In any case, this benefits everyone.

So you say.

[Dr. Frank fan]

It was not clear to me from your statement that you were referring only to the Federal government's funding of public education, and not the states.

In that case you could have looked at my Post #33 where I wrote

....which would seem to render a federal "Department of Education" unconstitutional, leaving it a state matter.

"State matter". Seems clear enough. When someone challenged me I wrote in Post #73

Was power over children's education delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

The phrase "the United States" obviously refers to the federal government (taken directly from Amendment X). So you could have looked at my Post #73, as well.

In fact I'm not even sure which of my posts you actually did read....

[BabsC]

Explain their lapse.

Like the Saudi's of today the fundamentalist Christians of yesterday still held sway. Remember we had "blue laws" in the south until very recently and still can't sell liquor on Sundays. As far as the establishment clause the author is correct. The hardest thing about Freedom is allowing everybody theirs.