Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

Can you explain how the department of education is unconstitutional?Besides that you didn't answer my question. There may be some things that toe the line but is that really a good defense for the current actions?Is the best you can come up with simply that, "The rest of the government does X, Y, and Z so therefore this is no big deal"?

---

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

Jazzns, I think I answered your question. I see the problem as much wider than Bush, and rants about Bush being a fascist as alarmism and not very helpful. What we need to do is recognize the Consitutional limits placed on the federal government, not just the Constitutional limits placed on the presidency.The Dept of Education is unConstitutional because no where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government to involve itself with education, and explicitly reserves all powers not specified in the Constitution to the people or the states respectively. Half of the government's actions and programs are unConstitutional.

There's a strong rationale for your position provided at Department of Education must be abolished, but even though this is Jazzns's thread and he inquired about it, I think I'm going to have to rule the constitutionality of the Department of Education off-topic except as it bears upon Bush's presidency.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

OK. Edit to add though. Maybe this does bear on Bush's presidency. Please bear with me and it still off-topic, I will stop for sure, but this link was interesting.The No-Child-Left-Behind act was an area where Bush adopted liberal policies and actually promoted the liberal democratic agenda of expanding federal involvement in education. The basic idea is to use the federal government to help people. At the time, many such as Farah, the chief editor of WorldNetDaily, severely criticized Bush even suggesting Bush's "communitarian" beliefs were not so different than communism at heart, and thus refused to endorse Bush because he didn't understand or accept the Constitutional limits placed on the federal government.My tack on this thread is not to absolve Bush of ignoring the Constitution but to raise the larger issue that we cannot keep promoting ignoring Constitutional limits in one area and then decry a president or some other part of government taking away our rights in another. We need to develop a consistent framework for limiting government expansion in order to do that.Imo, Bush has always been a centrist and never a conservative, except on a few issues, mostly social issues and ironically on his view that we should follow an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and appoint judges that take that stance.So he is a mixed bag. I think his judicial appointments are more likely to curb government power over private individuals than would be the case if a more liberal president were in office, such as democrat.I think though that Big Government guys, whether socialist, liberal, Republican or whatever, are not ever going to properly reign in the government so that the government respects limitations placed on it by the Constitution. So I see Bush's actions as part of a trend, and not significantly different than most other presidents.I think the solution is to become and vote for real conservatives and libertarians that advocate placing severe limits on federal programs, government expansion, etc,....I am not as upset over Bush's actions because I think he appointed men to the Supreme court that are more likely to curb the government's power in the long run, or hope so, and so his dalliance with creative interpretations of law designed to give his presidency a pass on things, though wrong, is of less concern that the opportunity to reverse the trend through his judicial appointments.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Fascinating topic well worth its own thread. You've almost got an OP right there.As far as this thread goes, placing Bush within the larger context of government constitutionality issues seems a pretty important contribution. As long as the overall focus of discussion remains more Bush than not, I think this thread is okay.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think you're wrong about that. Why wouldn't they have been endangered? There's no statute of limitations on pursuing actions against federal or state violations of civil rights, as far as I'm aware. Various high-profile civil rights cases that emerged decades after the events they sought action for would seem to confirm my view. But that's already limited by the mechanisms of civil and judicial review. The Supreme Court didn't rule that a city can take any lands that they want for any purpose whatsoever; only that in the specific case of the Kelo situation, they didn't find that the process violated anybody's civil rights. And it didn't. So long as correcting urban blight is a legitimate public interest - and nobody seems to dispute that it is - the government requires tools to use against unreasonable holdout sellers.

I have to say I agree for the most part randman and I hope you are right about the appointments. I certainly would like to see a centerist libertarian government. I happen to think that it should be the governments responsibility to steward things such as healthcare and the environment because they are in the only or best position to be effective in those arenas. That makes me a little left of conservative but I think this is the frist time we could mostly agree on something.I think the thing to note about your responses is that you don't seem to be a diehard Bush apologist. I didn't mean to seem like an alarmist although I suppose it could have been interpreted that way. I was mostly just trying to call out the Bush fanatics on this particular issue. I DO think my characterization is correct and I don't think that the tendencies you describe are a good excuse at all. A good president should be doing more to repair the trend of Constitutional damage that you describe that just appointing good judges which has yet to be seen. A bad president would do, like Bush IS doing, to further the precident of superceeding the Constituion. It is one more of a number of things he has done in his presidency to push that envelope, IMO more than any other president so far.I will respect Percy's decision to refrain from commenting on the Constitutionality of The Dep of Ed except to say that I don't think you have it right. If you want to start a thread on it I would be willing to discuss it there with you.

---

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

Unless you can tie this in to Bush's presidency, I think it's off-topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director