Posted on 06/29/2002 1:57:34 PM PDT by theoverseer
Would you also agree that this country has gone into a downhill slide since the Socialists have made more and further progress in removing God (and Christian moral principles) from our daily interaction with government? Can you see the connection between the events of the last 60 or so years and the removal of God from government?
Neither is abortion.
Yes.
Can you see the connection between the events of the last 60 or so years and the removal of God from government?
No.
There is a better Constitutional case for there being a right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment than there is for the federal governent to be involved in public education.
Absolutely, I'd agree to that. There is no doubt the founders were men of God. My only point is that I wish they had included a bit more if their religious beliefs into the constitution because no one reads or looks to the federalist papers [except us junkies] when deciding what the founders meant. Only the constitution counts. I admire it greatly, but there is nothing contained within that outlines or guarantees wisdom in moral issues.
Would you also agree that this country has gone into a downhill slide since the Socialists have made more and further progress in removing God (and Christian moral principles) from our daily interaction with government? Can you see the connection between the events of the last 60 or so years and the removal of God from government?
I would. And I think if we had direct evidence outlined we could point to it and tell em' to shut their traps--but their isn't. The godless know this and continue to appeal to the Supreme court because they know they have a good chance of getting their "interpretation" of what the constitution should mean. They, as you point out, have been very successful at getting their way.
Which brings me back to my original question--Why did the constitutional system break down so quickly? Why did the checks and balance system become basically mute with the Supreme court becoming virtually unchecked in power?
I still say it is the issue of sovereignty. =)
Yes and we have a mechanism in place to deal with people like such, they are called criminal laws. These are laws that are designed to prevent people from infringing on other people rights and\or well being.
And although Hitler, who used the gas chambers to commit genocide, may have been a-theistic, it appears that the German people still possessed a sense of God being on there side in their great struggle. Which enable them to commit all kinds of atrocities, since it was for the greater good.
But you still have not addressed my main question of what constitutes high or low moral character. What you have given are examples of criminal deviate behavior. And although one could say that such persons probably do not have much moral character, and I would tend to agree with you. It does not establish that one moral code as opposed to another, leads to criminal deviate behavior.
So what does constitute high moral character? Is that something that only those who follow the bible to the letter can possess, and that those who dissent from the collective are bound to be morally inferior? That would seem to follow the same logic that the mulsims put forth that all those who do not follow the koran are morally inferior. Do you, as I assume you do not follow the teachings of the koran, feel that you are morally inferior?
”Kerberos is a software package which is a copyright of CMU.”
Actually it is an authentication protocol that was developed at MIT. CMU may have a copyrighted program of the same name, as I believe the MIT protocol is public domain. If not, CMU may have a legal problem.
Hmmm, well then it's a good thing you don't live in Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
At least in Jefferson's eyes, if not those of Earl Warren, support for education was a federal matter, as well as a state and local issue (see NorthWest Ordinance, written by Jefferson, for mechanisms provided to finance education).
Going beyond the narrow issue of whether or not education is federal, state or local, in Jefferson's eyes, if not those of Earl Warren and that ilk, it was quite appropriate to rely on religious institutions, even, in fact, those held in low regard, even fear, for the purpose of providing education to the people.
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.
Was power over children's education delegated to the United States by the Constitution? Answer this question for yourself, and therein lies your answer.
for sure Thomas Jefferson proposed and Congress passed a budget that provided federal funds to Roman Catholic priests to teach school in the Old Northwest Territory!
That may not have been strictly Constitutional either (see also Louisiana Purchase). Your point?
Not the "establishment of public education" but federal involvement in it. As for "how", see Post #73 (the one right before yours).
Dr. Frank: wherein does the establishment of public education by the states violate the 5th amendment?
Again, it's not "the establishment of public education" which I was talking about, just federal involvement. Anyway, to answer your question, the 5th Amendment reads, in part, that
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
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.
Is she compensated? I don't think so.
Doesn't the actions of State goverments
The Constitution doesn't apply in the same way to State governments, and I certainly wasn't talking about State governments. Best,
Tenth 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.
Seems pretty clear to me. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any power at all to regulate education in any manner. Since such power is not specifically delegated to the federal government, it does not exist.
I would argue that as a matter of sound public policy, the power to regulate education ought not exist at the State level either. But I would not argue specifically that they are constitutionally prevented from doing so. That legitimacy of such an argument would have to depend on the specific language in the individual state constitutions.
But clearly, education is not a Constitutionally authorized federal function. Tell me. Why do you think it is (or might be)?
And "raise"? What does that word really mean? Bet you thought it meant to just go out and recruit - and that would be your thought!
Somebody else could view it carrying with it the same sort of meaning that we would have in the phrases "raise a garden", "raise a child", and so forth. With our Constitution recognizing that ALL of us are going to end up in the militia, it seems pretty clear that the very same Constitution empowered Congress to "raise" us up for that eventuality.
Now you go along and read the Constitution your way, and I'll read it my way, and my army will kick your army's butt!
Since both Houses of Congress refused to insert the word "expressly" before "delegated", the courts (post-FDR) have since used that to expand the "interstate commerce" clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution to include anything that may be even remotely associated with interstate commerce.
Certainly, education affects the ability of a state to effect interstate commerce .... so they say. Well, what doesn't? Ergo, the federal government poking their nose into everything under the cover of the notorious "interstate commerce clause". In 1995, the Supreme Court in the US v Lopez case finally put the brakes on the congressional abuse of the commerce clause. Maybe that will hold some hope for overturning some other rulings
That is a ridiculous stretch. By your reading of the word "raise" there would be no limit to what the government can do. We need straong, well-fed young people to raise an army too. Does that mean that the government should own all the farms?
I normally don't like to hurl epithets when reasoned discussion is called for. But I'll make an exception here. Your analysis is just plain nuts.
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.