[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 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.

A parent being uncaring does not remove the parent's responsibility for educating his or her child and, therefore, being uncaring is irrelevant.

Education is just as much a matter of the public good as the criminal justice system. They are both pillars of a civilized society.

There may very well be public good in having an educated populace but that doesn't mean government should be put in charge of that education - particularly given the dismal failure that these government indoctrination centers (public schools) are.

Perhaps, but since the federal government's role in education is already comparatively small, it wouldn't be a big deal to eliminate it.

I'm not sure No Child Left Behind is a small role in education.

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.

I don't agree with the interpretation that the limits placed on the federal government extend to the states but it is an interpretation that has often been made.

The 14th Amendment most certainly does not prohibit the states from having a role in education.

If the interpretation often used (extending the federal constitutional limits to the states) is valid (again, I don't agree with that interpretation) then it most certainly would prohibit the states from having a role.

By your silly logic, the states could do NOTHING that the federal government cannot do and so therefore would be entirely redundant.

It's not my logic, it's the logic of those who interpret the 14th amendment to extend federal limits to the states.

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.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. The 14th Amendment is fairly specific. However, that doesn't change how the amendment is often interpreted as limiting the powers of the states.

Obviously, your interpretation is wildly incorrect.

It isn't my interpretation.

Go back and read the 10th Amendment, and then re-read the 14th.

Those who interpret it the way I described would say the 14th amendment supercedes the 10th amendment. Again, it isn't my argument! What the 14th amendment does do, however, is extend the federal government limitations in the Bill of Rights to the states (or so it has also been interpreted).