Supreme Court slaps down crazy Colleges

[GePap]

How does Congress not have the power to give college money?

congress can spend the treasury any damn way it wants- if Congress votes to give money to clowns so they can buy porsches, that is part of their constitutional power.

[Zkribbler]

Berserker wants a clause in the Constitution saying: Congress shall have the power to spend money on colleges. He's very, very restrictive on the powers of government.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Mao


There seems to a crapload of do-gooders where I am...those non-profit legal aid people...

What does that have to do with what I'm saying? Are you saying that everyone can afford it because there are people who do it for non-profit?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ming


Take your trolling somewhere else... BEFORE you get restricted.

Take any modicum of humour elsewhere as well.

[monolith94]

It's not even the "don't ask, don't tell" policy I object to so much as the "kill others and risk being killed" policy.

[Zkribbler]

Yeah well, we tried pointing our fingers at them and yelling "bang" but they wouldn't fall for it.

[monolith94]

BANG!

[MrFun]

What if I point my finger at someone and yell, "PWNED!"

[Berzerker]

Take a look at the first and last clauses in Art. I, § 8:

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .

Yes, thats the phrase commonly cited to support stuff that isn't in the Constitution. But according to Madison it isn't a power (federalist 43) but is descriptive of the powers that follow it. Notice how it also says "provide for the common defense"? Why did the Framers follow that with a power to maintain a navy? The obvious redundancy was lost on them? Congress can raise and support armies, but no appropriation may exceed 2 years (they tied it to the term of the House). Your interpretation not only conflicts with Madison, it conflicts with logic and the fact it took nearly 2 centuries for the federal gov't to discover the power to create a dept of education.

If Congress has the power to promote the general welfare, then why list specific powers detailing what Congress can do?

The "spending" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause grants Congress wide powers to create call kinds of mischief.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

The last part limits the first part.

How does Congress not have the power to give college money?

congress can spend the treasury any damn way it wants- if Congress votes to give money to clowns so they can buy porsches, that is part of their constitutional power.

If Congress can spend on anything it wants, why does the Constitution limit Congress to a couple dozen or so duties? Congress has the power to establish a postal system, the Constitution says so. But why? According to you they can spend money on anything. Explain...

Berserker wants a clause in the Constitution saying: Congress shall have the power to spend money on colleges. He's very, very restrictive on the powers of government.

I'm not restrictive, the Framers were restrictive.

[chequita guevara]

No one cares what your views on the Constitution are, Berz, because they are so out of touch with reality.

In any event, there's an easy way for universities to get around this. Simply have all recruiters gather in a special location, one which students will have to make a trip to go to. For real job recruiters, students will make the trip. For the military, very few people will go out of their way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In any event, there's an easy way for universities to get around this. Simply have all recruiters gather in a special location, one which students will have to make a trip to go to. For real job recruiters, students will make the trip. For the military, very few people will go out of their way.

I think they should just have allowed them in the law school area in the first place, the student protests would have garnered more press for their position and make those military recruiters rethink where they set up shop for recruits.

[Berzerker]

No one cares what your views on the Constitution are, Berz, because they are so out of touch with reality.

But I am right

In any event, there's an easy way for universities to get around this. Simply have all recruiters gather in a special location, one which students will have to make a trip to go to. For real job recruiters, students will make the trip. For the military, very few people will go out of their way.

Universities dont let job recruiters have easy access to students?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Notice how it also says "provide for the common defense"? Why did the Framers follow that with a power to maintain a navy?

My best guess: Navies don't necessarily provide for the common defense. For example, it would be hard to defend Pittsburgh with the Navy. A Navy can also be used offensively, e.g. the War with the Barbary Pirates.

If Congress can spend on anything it wants, why does the Constitution limit Congress to a couple dozen or so duties? Congress has the power to establish a postal system, the Constitution says so. But why? According to you they can spend money on anything. Explain...

"the Constitution limit[s] Congress to a couple dozen or so duties?" Says you. My analysis conforms with that of most legal scholars.

I'm not restrictive, the Framers were restrictive.

Some of the Framers were restrictive. But remember, the creation of the Bank of the United States was fought over by those who wrote the Constitution. Even they were at odds over what it meant. The prevailing side in that debate was that of those who supported the broader reading.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some of the Framers were restrictive. But remember, the creation of the Bank of the United States was fought over by those who wrote the Constitution. Even they were at odds over what it meant. The prevailing side in that debate was that of those who supported the broader reading.

Alexander Hamilton would be proud.

[Berzerker]

My best guess: Navies don't necessarily provide for the common defense. For example, it would be hard to defend Pittsburgh with the Navy. A Navy can also be used offensively, e.g. the War with the Barbary Pirates.

But no navy provides for the common defense? Providing for the common defense is a general catch-all that certainly would include a navy, so why did the Framers offer detailed powers about how to provide for the common defense when Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and spend money on anything it wants? Because the details matter, they are the powers. Among Congress' other powers is to raise and support armies and calling forth the militia. Again, why? Doesn't all this stuff provide for the common defense making the enumeration of these powers redundant. Btw, why are you guessing?

"the Constitution limit[s] Congress to a couple dozen or so duties?" Says you. My analysis conforms with that of most legal scholars.

article 1 sec 8 says so - explain why there are roughly 2 dozen duties spelled out. As for what "legal scholars" have to say, how does one become a legal scholar? A bunch of crooked politicians annoint people mostly from government schools who agree with them, hell, even Ann Coulter is described as a constitutional scholar.

Some of the Framers were restrictive. But remember, the creation of the Bank of the United States was fought over by those who wrote the Constitution. Even they were at odds over what it meant. The prevailing side in that debate was that of those who supported the broader reading.

So provide evidence the prevailing opinion of the Framers was that Congress can spend money on anything it wants to "promote the general welfare". I've already cited Madison and federalist 43, almost 200 years of US history without a federal dept of education, and the illogic of your interpretation. And a national bank is not a stretch given the enumerated powers of Congress to coin money, regulate its value, borrow money and pay debts, etc. All that was ~settled in their time, the federal dept of education was created under Carter I believe. So its illogical to use the former as evidence to support the latter.