Originally posted by 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.
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.

The education argument also doesn't seem to work at all because its confined to the highschool level. Since the Supreme Court previously ruled that school should only be manditory for students up untill 8th grade, all the judicial and legal history on this issue is against your suggestion.
Comment