Dept. of Education Unconstitutional?

This is a thread in response to randmans comment: Although I would like to know what other programs randman considers unconstitutional, this thread should primarily examine the existance of the Department of Education and general Federal support of education initiatives.I'll start by posting what I believe are the relevant sections of Article 1 Section 8 which is the Scope of Legislative Powers: Nothing explicitly permits the support of education by Congress but the opening statement of Section 8 DOES say that Congess is empowered to provide for the "general welfare". This I believe is enough to refute any claim of the unconstitutionality of social programs, including education, that do not infringe directly upon the limits of Congress (Section 9) or any other parts of the Constitution such as the Bill of Rights.My second point is simply that Section 9, which describes the limitations of Congress, also does not explicitly disallow federal education programs or other social programs.My third point is more verbose. I'll start from a quote from the Dept. of Ed website about the history of Federal involvement in education. This EXPLICITLY falls under the parts of Section 8 I quoted above. Providing for the defense of the nation in our day and age requires an educated populace from which to develop, arm, equip, and utilize defense technology.If such an extension of responsibilities was deemed unconstitutional, then Congress would fail with regards to its scope explicitly outlined in Section 8. The Dept. of Ed was therefore legally commissioned by Congress to steward this responsibilty.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

No where does the Constitution permit the Louisiana Purchase, either. This was a great problem for President Thomas Jefferson, as he was the most notable of the States' Rights/strict constructionalism proponents. Yes, as hard as it may seem to us in the early years of the 21st century, it was explicitly acknowledged at that time that there were potential Constitutional problems with the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson, the big strict contructionalist (i.e. Constitutional literalist) went ahead and did it anyway -- thus, strict constructionalism died in the very early years of the Republic.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

right, right.also, doesn't the constitution, or the bill of rights more likely, have a phrase about "all powers not granted to x and x is granted to y"
and what about the elastic clause phrase? which is probably the one I originally meant.

If you use the term, general welfare, loosely, then the 19th amendment means nothing. The idea that the general welfare provision meant carte blanche for expansion of federal power is not in agreement with the founders of the Republic and Constitution.Granted, you could make a limited argument for limited grants for national security, but what we are seeing is federalization of a state and local and family responsibility, something I might add that was a major goal of the communist manifesto.

True, but at the same time, I think the purchase of land was not necessarily as far from a strict interpretation of the Constitution as what we see today. It's not clear that the federal government could not buy land since the government is authorized to purchase other things. But part of the problem is it set a precedent, and that kings often did this sort of thing.

quote:

---

...something I might add that was a major goal of the communist manifesto.

---

I have actually read The Communist Manifesto, and I suspect that the text if available online if you care to read it yourself. I can assure you that Marx and Engels were pretty much unconcerned with the controversies over American Constitutional law.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

surely you don't mean the 19th amendment--you know, the one that gave women the right to vote. oh, and if you somehow mean that deomcrats are responsible for the vast extenstion of federal power, Lincoln's a good one too. He's the one responsible for the largest jump in extension of federal power until FDR and the great depression. Since then, all other presidents have been trying to expand their power, and the federal gov't as a whole has been doing that. as they say, the beauracracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding beauracracy.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

i think randman means that all commies want to increase the power of their national governments.so, by twisting it a little bit, Bush is a commie. as is Lincoln. as is Reagan. oh, and why I'm not mentioning dems in this list? why, you probably think they are commies to begin with. so what's the point of stating the obvious (to you at least) to you.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

quote:

---

It's not clear that the federal government could not buy land since the government is authorized to purchase other things.

---

It may not be clear to some people today since we have all been raised and educated to accept some degree of loose constructionalism. But strict constructionalism is, simply, if the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to do something, then it does not have that power. It was recognized at the time that no where does the federal government have the power to acquire new territory, and certainly no power to purchase it from a foreign power. I'm not making up a problem, this was a problem as it was viewed by the participants themselves. The solution to the problem was that the President, formerly a strict constructionalist, decided that the Louisiana Purchase was so obviously in the best interests of the U.S. (ignoring that perhaps Constitutional limits on the powers of the government might in themselves be in the best interests of the U.S.) that no one would actually challenge the purchase.As I said, strict contructionalism was compromised in the first decade of the 19th century, and, oh!, what a slippery slope it has turned out to be.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

i think randman means that all commies want to increase the power of their national governments.

---

Heh. A bit off-topic to continue in this vein, although I love seeing people expose their ignorance of various topics.More on topic: you are correct. Very few of us are actually strict constructionalsts, or at least very few of us are honest strict constructionalists. Most of us are very happy to see federal power expand in directions we approve of, but are quick to cry "Unconstitutional!" at the other side's attempts to expand state power in their preferred directions.Note: Despite my use of the word "us", the above does not necessarily express my own opinions on the philosophy of Constitutional law.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

ROFL. No it was probably just a mistype. The relevent portions quoted of the Constitution are not even IN the ammendments but rather the articles. In particular we are discussion Section 8 of Article 1.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Heck yeah, Lincoln is responsible for the expansion as federal power as much as any other president, imo. He and FDR top the list.

Obviously a typo and obviously the amendment clarifies and is therefore extremely significant for this issue, contrary to what you posted.

And found it appealing?

I've read it, too--as right and wrong as, oh, say, Freud, approximately.I'll make an exception to personal policy for this one. Ah, but you need a committe of your kind, rand, to bring you to full potency. Then I could ask like an echo of a time both better and worse than this one:"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"I'm sure you know the verse.

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------