Statist School Systems In A Nutshell

reply to post by Whyhi

Wow, nice way to twist around what I meant there.

Wow, maybe you should start saying what you mean instead of relying on gross over generalizations.

If a health care reform is carried out, the increase to your income tax is put into effect, increasing your tax. Of course you can use the tax liability statement you used earlier and say well I am not directly involved, and I could respond with the commerce clause that allows them to have to power to carry out such reforms.

The issue of property tax was germane to this thread as this topic is about public schools and most public schools are funded through property taxes, not "income taxes", and your incessant use of the word "you" to ascribe a tax liability to anyone other than yourself only continues to reveal your profound ignorance of the principles of Constitutional taxation. You have no legal authority to assess any other persons tax liability than yourself. Try to stay on topic.

Supreme law, as in you're subject to it. An individual can break the constitution, no? Treason and such?

The Constitution remains a document outlining the jurisdictional boundaries of those elected and appointed government officials, and the people not elected or appointed have not taken any oath of office swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution, that ritual is reserved for people who work for the government, and they are the ones subject to The Constitution, and that Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land and no subsequent legislation or executive order, or judicial fiat can overrule The Constitution, of which all federal government employees are bound to obey.

How did I erroneously quote the 14th amendment? I said the 14th amendment gave US citizenship to anyone born in the US, correct? I think it's safe to assume that as a US citizen, you follow laws, including tax laws.

The 14th Amendment did not create any new power for the federal government, nor did it place any new burden upon the people, and was primarily written to correct the problem of the Dred Scot ruling, where African Americans were not afforded the right to a redress of grievances and other rights, because of that ruling. That is the historical context in which that Amendment was written, and your continued deflection of tax liability continues to ignore you have no legal authority to assess any persons tax liability outside of your own.

If you're trying to equate slavery with obtaining a US citizenship through birth and therefore are to follow US laws, then more power to you I guess.

You're the one who attempted to use the 14th Amendment to argue that a "social contract" had been made upon birth, not I.

I think you're just arguing with my wording at this point. Like I'll say slavery is illegal via the constitution and you'll say the Constitution is laying out the clear boundaries of government, and It's illegal because congress is enforcing the law of making slavery illegal. Did I get that one right? We'd still be arguing about what wording I may have used when we're both basically saying the same thing.

No, you did not get that one right. Congress legislates, the Executive branch enforces that legislation, and the Judicial branch adjudicates. Congress does not enforce what it has legislated. You and I are not saying the same thing, and words matter very much when it comes to law. The rules of statutory construction dictate that each and every word be given significance.

Please explain. Go on about natural rights or whatever while dismissing the concept of a social contract.

Very well then, I will. Natural Rights are a real part of common law that have been with us since time immemorial, and the concept of a "social contract" is not a part of common law. Common law is expressly spoken to in The Bill of Rights, and the 9th Amendment makes perfectly clear that all enumerated rights to not mean that those rights were granted by a government or Constitution, but exist outside of that. The 9th Amendment makes clear that the people have not surrendered their sovereignty, where a "social contract" relies on the surrender of sovereignty.

Further, it is a Constitutionally protected right of the people to make contracts. That right is in regards to actual contracts where agreements are arrived by all parties involved. Your "social contract" does not play by those rules. Do not attempt to equate a "social contract" with natural law, they are two different concepts.

In response to my question of what law I am breaking by not paying you arrogantly respond by stating:

Taxes

How many times do I have to tell you this? You have absolutely no legal authority to assess my tax liability. Whatever tax liability I have is between I, and the government levying and collecting that tax, and is none of your business. If you want to speak to taxes, then at least have the courtesy of speaking to your own liability and stop pretending that your precious "social contract" has given you the legal authority to assess other peoples tax liability. You are too fast and loose with words to be trusted on tax law, so it is best you keep references to who is breaking tax law in regards to yourself.

I can truthfully say I actually had no idea the constitution was actually supposed to be capitalized. You got me there.

It was a quibbling point, no doubt, but interestingly you still refused to capitalize the word. Hmmmm.

All in all, name a specific tax which you think is unconstitutional. And yes, I support taxes, and socializing elements of society.

Any tax enforced unconstitutionally is an unconstitutional tax. Only those liable for taxes owe taxes, and all people made liable for a tax must pay that tax. I have not made any claims that taxes are unconstitutional, this is your game, not mine. You are, of course, all for socializing "elements" of society, but who the hell is society? Is that one of those citizens born in The United States of America made a citizen by the 14th Amendment? You may advocate taxation, and of course you do, to fund your socialist Utopia, but The Constitution lays out plainly that Congress must abide by certain rules regarding taxation. All direct taxes must be apportioned among the states, and all indirect taxes must be uniform across the states. This means if you hope to escape the pain of apportionment, and hope to use taxes to fund your Utopia, that those taxes must be uniform and indirect as in a taxable event. Good luck with that, as all taxable events are defeatable taxes.

PS: Yes, I'm aware I probably worded several things in there incorrectly and I'm alright if you point them out for me in a somewhat patronizing manner

Good, I am pleased to know that, since I have obviously done so anyway.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Guardian of the South,

I have read your posts on several of the threads that peak my intrest. and i would simply like to say i agree with your STATE sponsored viewpoints. I too think our STATE registered children should only attend STATE sponsored indoctrination facilities. after all my stated (registered) child should be only exposed to STATE approved material.
im tired of people whining about their need to express their "own" opinion.

we will issue your opinions. if you dont like it, please contact the appropriate STATE sponsored authorities.

HAIL THE STATE

reply to post by mumma in pyjamas


There actually are those types of high schools in the USA. I went to one myself. They are called vocational high schools/career centers. Please don't assume that there aren't such things when a quick google would show you there were.

I'm so sick of non US citizens talking bad about the USA before knowing anything about it.


But anyways...

I think the main problem with education is that you are never taught to think creatively. It is always fill out the answers of a worksheet and look up the answers in the book. That only goes so far.

No one is taught to THINK, just taught to memorize.

Also, I remember doing a worksheet in the 8th grade that I then again got in the 12th grade. Teachers should make up their OWN work, not find something out of the book/out of the internet and print it out. That is not teaching. WORKSHEETS are the least bit educational.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by mnmcandiez]

[edit on 8/19/2010 by mnmcandiez]

Another point I'd like to make from personal experience is that I went to a inner city school and a suburban school system. The experiences were like night and day. I graduated a year ago by the way.


The inner city school (Cleveland Public School District) was literally falling apart. Half of the windows were broke and some classes didn't even have enough desks for all of the students. The punishment for bad behavior was called ROR (right of removal) in which you were sent to sit in a 4 foot wide old elevator hallway. While in this, you learned nothing and couldn't do any work.

There were at least one fist fight everyday (NO exaggeration). All of the text books were vandalized, falling apart and many YEARS old. You had to share some of the text books because there wasn't enough for everybody.

The kids pretty much ran the school. There was no real punishment for your actions. The typing class I took was absolutely a have fun and talk class. Everyone just put on rap music and did whatever they wanted the whole time.

NO amount of funding would have helped the school. It was the kids attitudes, no one wanted to learn. They had no respect for the staff. But this was all because of the ghetto environment. And of course not everyone acted this way but 95% of the school did.


Then I moved into the suburbs.

I was literally SHOCKED. The books were new, none had cuss words and penises drawn in them. People didn't run down the hallway screaming cuss words as loud as they could. There was maybe 1 fist fight all year. The kids actually listened to the teachers and didn't talk the whole class.

It was like night and day. I was literally lost for awhile.

I'm so glad my parents could afford to move. If I would have stayed in the Cleveland schools I probably would be nearly retarded.

I believe charter schools are the answer. I went to a private college prep school and received an excellent high school education, upon graduation I was accepted at Hamilton College but went to St. Lawrence instead, because it was closer to home. If all our Native children were to go to a school in a neighboring community they'd get an excellent education. I have two nephews that went there and now they're both at Syracuse.The local public school that the majority of reservation kids go to isn't the greatest. The problem is that we don't pay property taxes, and here property taxes are used to pay for the local schools. They often call it the school tax. They have to rely on state aid for funding and New York is broke, in the red. We have a charter school here of sorts. They teach our traditional values,our native language and all the traditional subjects as well. The kids there are smart as whips and bi-lingual as well. It's sad really about the public schools. I went to a couple of really good grammar schools, but that was back in the sixties. Kennedy and LBJ were president.

reply to post by neo96


Agree somewhat with that. There's too much "educationalism" and too little "academic" emphasis in some of our schools. Some of that is because of the crowd-control aspect, and because we have students in our academic schools that, in other countries, would be in a specifically vocational track where they would be nearly prepared for a job upon high school graduation, rather than just being at the low end of the academic bell-curve but without economic skills.

reply to post by alonzo730


Who pays for that charter school? Isn't it NY State too, maybe from a different pot of money (or these days lack of money?)

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
... Consider this article by Time Magazine

On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools — or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Read more: www.time.com...

Can't have mom and dad protecting their children from the gangs in and around public schools can we? ...

What happened with that decision? It's from 2008, so it must have been appealed. We probably would be hearing more about it if it still stood. California is mighty messed up, but the people there are resisting the craziness, and with some success.

Here in NY state, you can homeschool but you have to provide lesson plans or curricula or something like that, and your kids have to take the normal grade-level tests.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


I can google!
I did come across vocational schools in my search of schools in the USA.

As I am not living in the USA I can only base this on what i have been able to find.
Correct me if I am wrong but Vocational education was described as;

vocational schools are only two years of schooling.
A vocational school (or trade school or career school), providing vocational education, is a school in which students are taught the skills needed to perform a particular job.

The type of school I was referencing is a complete secondary education.It does not train the student to enter a specific occupation.t is designed to nurture the students natural gifts and talents.

Here are SOME examples
SPORT
www.schools.nsw.edu.au...

PERFORMING ARTS
www.schools.nsw.edu.au...

ACADEMIC
www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au...

MUSIC
www.conservat-h.schools.nsw.edu.au...

Was the information I found on vocational schools accurate? As I mentioned I only have the internet as a source and you actually live there so there is a very real chance that what you say as a resident is more realistic.

Do you have the types of above mentioned schools available for students in public education?
I did not find any in my search but as we all know the net is hardly the pinnacle of truth.

In the USA we normally provide 12 years of schooling. 13 if it starts at kindergarten. The graduate is usually 18 years old, give or take a year. I think the years of schooling are the same, regardless of whether one is on a vocational or academic track. We don't send people to work at 14.

reply to post by oniongrass


I understand that the kids don't go to work at 14 because they attended 2/6 years of secondary schooling at a vocational school.

I was wondering if the comparison of Australian G&T/specialist schools and vocational schools in the USA was a fair comparison.
And if the information I DID find on vocational schools was accurate.

Thanks for trying to help.