Quote:
Quote by: Chancellor  Quote: |
Quote by: Winter wind What if the parent is uncaring? | Not relevant. |
Of course it's relevant.
Having a populace with the skills needed to thrive socially and economically is a benefit to all. If you can't see that, you're a shortsighted fool.
Education is just as much a matter of the public good as the criminal justice system. They are both pillars of a civilized society.
Quote:
|
Then go live in some socialist nanny state! It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the Constitution says and there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government a role in education.
|
Perhaps, but since the federal government's role in education is already comparatively small, it wouldn't be a big deal to eliminate it.
Quote:
|
And, since the federal Courts have said the 14th amendment essentially extends the Constititon's limits on the federal government to the states, the states don't have a role in education either.
|
Utter nonsense. Once again, you wield your Constitutional interpretation like a sledgehammer in an operating room - you can see the body you're supposed to work on, but you're using only a blunt instrument to do it.
The 14th Amendment most certainly does not prohibit the states from having a role in education. By your silly logic, the states could do NOTHING that the federal government cannot do and so therefore would be entirely redundant. The 14th Amendment says that the states cannot deny any rights to the citizens which the federal government would be prohibited from denying under the Constitution - for example, a state cannot make a law that overturns the 5th Amendment. By your rationale, the states could not have criminal codes, since the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to enforce criminal law except in special circumstances.
Obviously, your interpretation is wildly incorrect.
Go back and read the 10th Amendment, and then re-read the 14th.