Oh geez, Kerry's an idiot

[Kirnwaffen]

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.

However, the Land Ordinance of 1785 set aside public money for the purpose of funding education. This could be construed as intent to provide free, public education.

[Nubclear]

Hi Ming

[Mordoch]

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

Its not clear if it wouldn't be possible to still work in addition to fufilling the requirements of the program. The fact is that a portion of the population still doesn't go to college, and most of these people could fufill those workforce duties. For that matter, some might argue a tighter labor market that drives up worker wages is actually a good thing.

[Berzerker]

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

That would require us to believe that a "right" can compel others to act on our behalf. The 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion was never construed to mean a right to force you to build me a church or buy me a Bible. And the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean a right to compel you to buy me a gun. Rights are about what you can do without forcing others to participate. The only exception in the Constitution is a right to trial by jury, but that's a different matter since in that case the state/people are trying to justify removing your rights to life, liberty or property and the Framers didn't want the state to have total control over the process.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
However, the Land Ordinance of 1785 set aside public money for the purpose of funding education. This could be construed as intent to provide free, public education.

Which has what, precisely, to do with the Constitution somehow mandating education for everyone?

[Berzerker]

Btw, what Kerry is asking does violate the Constitution. Not only is there no power for the feds to be involved with education which was a state issue, there is no power for the feds to compel "national service" except for raising armies - and they didn't mean an army of social workers.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
However, the Land Ordinance of 1785 set aside public money for the purpose of funding education. This could be construed as intent to provide free, public education.

I'd have to hear the details, but this seems to be suggesting the government should assist in making education accessible, and by no means is suggesting that the students don't have to do anything or pay in some way for this education. I know that well into the 19th century, some schools in the US territories may have received government money for the building to be built, but the students had to pay some money or they couldn't attend classes. Your priciple that you are implying is something that didn't exist in the US untill 1827 at the absolute earliest. And didn't exist elsewhere untill much later.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Which has what, precisely, to do with the Constitution somehow mandating education for everyone?

Careful Boris...You are getting dangerously close to a State's rights position.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw, what Kerry is asking does violate the Constitution. Not only is there no power for the feds to be involved with education which was a state issue, there is no power for the feds to compel "national service" except for raising armies - and they didn't mean an army of social workers.

The educational issue has been completely violated for years. The work requirement is more iffy, but in reality, it could be implemented by the Feds withholding government money unless the school implemented this policy that the government madated. You may not like, but the Republicans as well as the Democrats have been getting around these constitutional provisions in this manner for years without the courts stopping them.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw, what Kerry is asking does violate the Constitution. Not only is there no power for the feds to be involved with education which was a state issue, there is no power for the feds to compel "national service" except for raising armies - and they didn't mean an army of social workers.

It ammuses me when people ignore the Elastic Clause.

[St Leo]

WTF? **** Kerry. In 2004, vote Green or Socialist or even Libertarian. Unless Kucinich or Sharpton gets chosen, voting Democrat or Republican in 2004 is throwing your vote away. Both of those parties are Stalinists[42] these days.

[42] Well, I don't want to be sued for calling them Nazis.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Beware the Kerry Jugend!

[Patroklos]

I don't see the program as going to your local homeless shelter for an hour a day (though Kerry might have), but rather as a national labor service on the level of some communist, and yes facist regimes (not nessecarilly bad, they had a perchant for upgrading city utilites too). Not marching around with shovels as some paramilitary thing, though.

You go to a "summer camp" perhaps in your home state and then are bussed out to various projects like building cheap homes or picking up litter. Stuff that wouldn't require too much skilled training. I could even see the people who decide to do the 2 years to pay for college bieng the "officers" of the organization at the middle level.

[Kirnwaffen]

All I'm saying is that the idea to fund education on a national scale was at least present at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

The government established by the Constitution requires each citizen to represent his own interests by voting. Understanding what is in one's best interest requires an education. Thus, to deprive a person of an education essentially amounts to disenfranchisement, since he would not be able to properly represent his interests.

And simply because something that is intended by a law is not immediately put in place does not mean that it is not mandated. The 13th through 15th amendments were ignored for almost a century.

It's a stretch, I realize, but I'm bored and I feel like playing devil's advocate, even if I suck at it.

[Patroklos]

Ther is no inference the constitution that requires you to be educated to vote, or does it infer that you have to be educated to apply that right in the "correct" way.

There was a reason they didn't allow lieracy tests. The Jim Crow initiative wasn't the first time people tried that, and it wasn't the first time it was shot down.