Oh geez, Kerry's an idiot

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by civman2000

The difference between these and mandatory community service is that community service is a form of (involuntary) servitude ("the condition of being bound to service" according to dictionary.com) and thus violates the 13th Amendment. The others are just as involuntary, but are not servitude.

Again, arguing the constitution in this instance is nonsense, as the service is a requirement for graduation, nothing more. Nobody will be imprisoned or whipped for not doing it. They just won't graduate. That's not remotely unconstitutional.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO
Constitution 2
Slowwy 0
Boris 0

Stay tuned for more "Stump the Constitution" brought to you by the DNC

You're completely wrong, as nobody has shown one bit why this would be unconstitutional. See my previous two posts.

Boris 2
PLATO 0

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You're completely wrong, as nobody has shown one bit why this would be unconstitutional. See my previous two posts.

Boris 2
PLATO 0

Well I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert. Your argument does seem to be compelling in the area of Education not being Constitutionally mandated (and therefore reserved to the States). However, I still believe that while this is a worthy goal that it will lead to many bad things.

[Boris Godunov]

Maybe it will or maybe it won't, but regardless there's nothing remotely unconstitutional about it in terms of the 13th ammendment.

But I'm curious--what bad things will this lead to, in your opinion? Do you not think it could lead to a very positive result of a sense of national community?

[Berzerker]

America's new challenges will not be met by the same old answers of big government

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.

Ahem...Typical liberal...

[Kirnwaffen]

There is no "right to education" in the Constitution

9th Amendment?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
9th Amendment?

Wherein does that stipulate the government has to provide education for anyone?

[Kirnwaffen]

It doesn't. You could argue, however, that it is simply a non-enumerated right.

[Jon Miller]

I think that this is a bad idea (on the surface it mgiht seem good though)

the problem is that for some fields, like science

you do most of your acheivements between the ages of 20-30

and it takes years of training to get to the point where you can contribute

so assuming highschool graduation age of 18 (Although many are older), and 5 years to get to the point where contributions are starting to get significant (an additional 6 or 7 years until you are in full swing)

you won't be doing much until you are 23, and you will be ~30 before you are doing well

that is just too slow

and if you make it so that scholastics or money makes it so you can ignore this requirement, than you know that the wealthy with ignore it and the classes will become even more devided

Jon Miller

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But I'm curious--what bad things will this lead to, in your opinion? Do you not think it could lead to a very positive result of a sense of national community?

-Due to the numbers of students involved I see a high opportunity for corruption.

-I see no possible way to fund this on a federal level

-I see no way the States can handle another unfunded federal mandate.

-I see College and/or the entry into the workforce being delayed.

-I see this dissolving into another JobCorp type nightmare.

-I see the government taking the responsibility from the parents to raise their children in a Civic way.

-etc...

[DanS]

requiring mandatory service for high school students

We had mandatory service requirements at our high school. It's NBFD.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
It doesn't. You could argue, however, that it is simply a non-enumerated right.

You'd be an absolute idiot to do that though given that education was not freely available through the government when the consitution was written. It wasn't untill 1827 that Massachussetts made public school available to all citizens in the state free of charge, and they were presumably the first state to do so, with other not doing the same untill later. It wasn't untill 1905 that the US Supreme Court required California to extend public education to the children of Chinese Immigrants, individuals who were US citizens.

http://www.arc.org/erase/timeline.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that this is a bad idea (on the surface it mgiht seem good though)

the problem is that for some fields, like science

you do most of your acheivements between the ages of 20-30

and it takes years of training to get to the point where you can contribute

so assuming highschool graduation age of 18 (Although many are older), and 5 years to get to the point where contributions are starting to get significant (an additional 6 or 7 years until you are in full swing)

you won't be doing much until you are 23, and you will be ~30 before you are doing well

Huh? The service requirement isn't going tack on additional years to your education. The two years of service is a different proposal, in exchange for receiving college tuition reimbursement. It's not the same as the mandatory service, which AFAIK looks to be incorporated with the normal high school years.

and if you make it so that scholastics or money makes it so you can ignore this requirement, than you know that the wealthy with ignore it and the classes will become even more devided

Since the plan is to make it mandatory for everyone, and there's no mention of such exemptions, I think that's a bit of a stretch at the moment.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
and if you make it so that scholastics or money makes it so you can ignore this requirement, than you know that the wealthy with ignore it and the classes will become even more devided

Jon Miller

Similar requirements are already at some high schools for graduation, many of them "elite schools", and I haven't heard about wealthy students sucessfully getting out of the requirement.

[Patroklos]

It won't cause anyone who is already going to go to college through loans, scholarships, or private wealth from going to college. The requirement was stated as a 100 day summer program, thus it is not lengthening any time but rather removing that usless three months of unproductivity called summer vacation. They didn't even say if was every summer.

So basically anyone that was going to go to college at 18 now would still be able to if they were operating under this rule. What it also stated was that after graduation you could do an extended service tour and have four years of education funded. In fact, if we assume they go to a college of 15,000 a year they were in effect paid 60.000 dollars for that 2 years of service, and obviouly that 2 years would have to be a little more involved than the "summer camp." Would probobly provide room in board in a civil engineering corps barracks type enviroment. In other words alot of people who would never be able to go to college can after two years, and would do it through their own hard work for a noble cause.

Problems:

1) With a million man free workforce roaming around you might put alot of poor laborers out of work.

2) Alot of people underestimate the need for that swing summer work force that the summer vacation provides.