It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
To argue that the nation, the people, that the species itself shouldn't progress into our own greater ideals beyond the scope of the agrarian culture that the decleration was born in is stupid at best and pigheaded at worst.
You don't occupy a home without walls and only supports. The constitution is a framework for governance and law. It does not encompass the be all, end all of our society.
It helps to study history beyond 1789, we're not the same country and we never will be. The government is the people and the people are the government. There are moral and ethical avenues we could and should take that the constitution and the bill of rights doesn't address.
If you want to argue we've strayed too far from the constitution take it up with George Washington and the first congress.
Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by buni11687
Why is it OK for kids to get free lunches at school? Why is it the place of the school to provide free meals? In some cities they are now providing kids with free dinners as well. At what point do we say "if you can not afford to feed your kids then the kids need to be removed from the home"?
Sure, these are tough economic times, but the folks who are having their kids fed off the tax payer back are also the folks who are getting WIC stipends for food and food stamps. You want to provide more in the way of food for poor kids? OK then issue the parents more food stamps. Oh I forgot, many of these parents use the food stamps for smokes, booze or Cheetos and then little Johnny does not get a packed lunch, so we need to feed him at school. We're not going to cut the food stamps his family gets, the amount of which is based on how many people are in the home, we're just going to layer on another program.
Healthy eating? Beyond recommending healthy food and perhaps providing some education about nutrition, why is the government involved with what you feed your kids?
This bill should have been kiboshed. If you want to ensure that kids are given enough food then do one of two things. Remove them from homes led by parents who are too irrresponsible to properly care for their children or modify the food stamp program and make it only possible to purchase certain products with them.
As far as why the bill was voted down from a political sense, it is the same old nonsense. Politicians are always putting things into bills with banal names that force the other side to vote them down and then claim that "those guys voted against feeding children" when in fact they were voting against a rider placed on the bill that had nothing what so ever to do with the title of the bill. Both sides do it all the time.
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by buster2010
Also, note the lack of any Constitutional authorization for federal involvement in public education.edit on 5-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Janky Red
Please cite this Constitutional restriction upon educational involvement -
More than a few Founding Fathers believed in the public funding of libraries and the merits of education.
I did not see any explicit restriction...edit on 6-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Originally posted by Janky Red
Please cite this Constitutional restriction upon educational involvement -
More than a few Founding Fathers believed in the public funding of libraries and the merits of education.
I did not see any explicit restriction...edit on 6-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)
Huh?
I believe you are under the impression the Constitution is an affirmative grant of powers with a few exceptions.
That is 100% wrong. Try reading Article 1 Section 8.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison
"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Janky Red
How about I let the founding fathers define my argument for me:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
Pay particular attention to that last quote by Jefferson.
Do you see education specifically enumerated?
It isn't.
"The object [of my education bill was] to bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of mind which in proportion to our population shall be the double or treble of what it is in most countries." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1817. ME 15:156
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by maybereal11
Perfectly aware of his stance on public education.
The point is that there is no authorization in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in it.
States are free to do as they wish in regards to education. The federal government does not share that same power, nor do they have any authorization to spend a dime on it.
Originally posted by Janky Red
This is your point - but a great many of your fellow countrymen disagree with you.
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by rusethorcain
What part of the Constitution authorizes this expenditure?
This should be easy for you.