That all-important "right to privacy" among the varied emanations of saving penumbras.
I'll let them ban the pledge of allegience when they replace it with a daily recitation of the US constitution.
The structure of this passed law says when educators receive Federal monies they must teach the US Constitution. I didn't read the whole thing, but I'd bet there's no mention that the Federal government shouldn't be funding local (state) schools.
It didn't mention that the sovereign states power has been shrunk to nearly nothing by the illegal Federal Income Tax, which is required by the Constitution to be gather by apportionment from the states after _they_ exercise their right to direct tax. After this slate of hand, they then feel obligated to turn around and give some of it back to the state on their terms.
Seems to me there are illegal reasons that they can force the teaching of the US Constitution, since the states haven't worked to restore the taxing issue and now line up at the Federal feeding trough.
Seems to me trying to teach the sheeple the US Constitution is an awesome thing, in spite of the illegalities of getting it in place. Thank you Congressmen Byrd for seeing fit to add something useful onto this pile of broken and twisted law.
It would appear that a number of public officials in New Orleans are Constitution-challenged, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
This is the ironic part. There's nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to fund local schools, either.
That the requirement is linked to the funding is a red herring.
Thank you John Dewey, [NOT!]
"PRECEDENT POLICY. Now, as congressional lawmakers dug into Day Two of confirmation hearings for John Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, they put the commerce clause front and center. Business was listening intently, as were activists on both ends of the political spectrum. The root question is this: Where does Roberts draw the line on federal power?
His answer was surprisingly equivocal: In essence, he told lawmakers it depends. But the full impact of what he said should make business -- and some liberal activist groups -- smile, even as it likely will alarm advocates of a strict "constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution.
Business doesn't give a whit about judicial philosophy. What it wants from the courts is consistency and predictability -- tools for planning in the short term. That's one reason Corporate America mourned the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. "
So true, many people interpret the constitution in a manor that favors their point of view, disregarding the fact that they actually are undermining the true intentions setforth in the document.
My daughter is studying the Constitution in High School. I was prepared for some watered-down "interpretation" but found that-- at least, so far-- they're going through it pretty thoroughly. Her notes on Article I are longer than the Article itself. I plan to keep an eye on this, especially when they get to the BOR.