U.S. Government Shutdowns

[hopeandjoy]

Because there was no public education in the late 18th century, hence why the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. How would've the Founding Fathers known that the US would be that large and have a mandatory schooling for all children? They didn't even know if we'd last!

 

[Pwnemon]

Because there was no public education in the late 18th century, hence why the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. How would've the Founding Fathers known that the US would be that large and have a mandatory schooling for all children? They didn't even know if we'd last!

Not knowing if we'd last didn't mean that they didn't try their hardest to make us last.

Furthermore, hence the Necessary and Proper Clause, or Article V. That argument does not, however, allow you to blatantly sweep the constitution under the rug.

 

[hopeandjoy]

A Department of Education is not sweeping the Constitution under the rug. It is a way to make sure that every child in America at least gets a chance to a good education.

 

[Tarvos]

>republican laissez-faire

 

[Crazy Linoone]

If the Department were to stay, it would, in my opinion, have to be severely cut.

:| What's the point of that? I'm all for cutting unnecessary stuff, but if the Department of Education has a program that requires money and actually works, I think they should get all the funding they need. It's the future of America (and the rest of the world, after these children grow up) we're talking about here, you know.

I'm curious... what exactly does the Department of Education do in cases like you've mentioned? Say, "No, Texas, you can't do that"?

Pretty much, but with more action (as in actually going in and getting rid of whatever super fundamentalist or conservative laws they passed) rather than just looking at them with disapproval.

I was going to respond to all the "states rights" arguments, but then NWT said it for me:

ed: It is completely beyond me how this is an issue to you. However: would you be against an amendment stating that the DoE is a constitutional institution?

 

[Saith]

So wait, why do people treat this constitution thing like a bloody holy text, then?
I mean, all I can see is that it's, like, a set of guidelines about laws and stuff.
If changing it is good, why are you against changing it?

Fake Edit: I'm probably missing something stupidly obvious, by the way.

 

[Koori Renchuu]

The Constitution was made to be changed in the long run. The addition of amendments allows the laws to be changed. That is what makes it so successful. We are also allowed to interpret it in the modern context. This is how the Constitution was made to be.

 

[Music Dragon]

That is what makes it so successful.

*snorts, chokes on drink*

 

[Koori Renchuu]

*snorts, chokes on drink*

Fine, I'll revise my statement. That's what's made it as successful as it has been so far.

 

[Adriane]

The Constitution is unsuccessful because nobody can agree on what the hell it means.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

see: the elastic clause

 

[surskitty]

In addition, schooling in D.C. is one of the worst and most expensive in the nation: $13,000 per student!

Fuck it, I'll bite.

Is this figure being used for public schools only or all schools? As far as what it's being compared to goes, is that $13k-per-student money from the federal government and being compared to states' money from the feds, or money total? DC doesn't get state taxes, just federal and city .... Who is deciding where the money goes? Because it makes a hell of a lot of a difference between if it's DC handling this or if Congress is dictating what DC does again.

And yes, that is a really, really important question; the budget that passed recently? The one where they're like AT LEAST THEY DIDN'T DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD? Yeaaaah, that included a rider preventing DC from using its own city tax dollars on abortion and Republicans were pushing to stop some programs that would help prevent the spread of HIV. The Republican Party is against allowing DC to continue spending its own goddamn money on needle-exchange programs to try to do something about its really fucking high HIV rate. I wish I was making this shit up. Everywhere else? If the federal government stops funding something, at least the states can fund it; it's sure as hell not ideal, particularly when it's something as basic as Planned Parenthood, but it can happen. DC takes in its city tax dollars, but Congress still can go FUCK YOU YOU ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY WHERE YOU PLEASE. (For those of you who have not seen me rant about DC's lack of statehood and various reasons the default DC license plate is Taxation Without Representation, DC has tried multiple times to do things like, say, legalise medicinal marijuana (and if you are against medicinal marijuana I have Words for you; it does a very good job of handling a lot of chronic pain conditions) and Congress has declared that they can't hold a referendum to actually get it passed. Back when DC was trying to get marriage equality, it was a very real concern that fuckheads in Congress would intervene. Have I mentioned that DC gets no voting representation in Congress? Gods fucking damn, why the hell isn't DC a state. Oh, wait, I know! It's because it's an area that would never vote conservative ever!)

 

[Aobaru]

Because there was no public education in the late 18th century, hence why the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. How would've the Founding Fathers known that the US would be that large and have a mandatory schooling for all children? They didn't even know if we'd last!

However: would you be against an amendment stating that the DoE is a constitutional institution?

No, I would not be against an education amendment, provided the department it created was limited and most of the power remained with the states.

:| What's the point of that? I'm all for cutting unnecessary stuff, but if the Department of Education has a program that requires money and actually works, I think they should get all the funding they need. It's the future of America (and the rest of the world, after these children grow up) we're talking about here, you know.

By "severely cut", I mean cutting all unnecessary stuff. And there's a lot of it.

The Constitution is unsuccessful because nobody can agree on what the hell it means.

Vixie, I'm curious. Are you in favor of scrapping the Constitution and starting anew? If so, what would this new Constitution entail?

edit:

Is this figure being used for public schools only or all schools? As far as what it's being compared to goes, is that $13k-per-student money from the federal government and being compared to states' money from the feds, or money total? DC doesn't get state taxes, just federal and city .... Who is deciding where the money goes? Because it makes a hell of a lot of a difference between if it's DC handling this or if Congress is dictating what DC does again.

Dios, it turns out it's worse than I thought. "The Cato Institute's Andrew Coulson had crunched the numbers and finds that the District of Columbia public school system spent almost $1.3 billion educating 45,858 students for the 2008-2009 school year. That works out to spending of $28,169 per student." link By comparison, New York metro area public schooling, the most expensive in the nation, is only $27,000/student. link

I don't know whether DC or Congress is handling it, to be honest. But isn't the area ultimately under the responsibility of the federal government?