My Average American's Republican wish list!

[EdmundDantes]

1.) CLOSE THE FRIGGIN BORDER AND ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO RE-VAMP IT!!!!!!!!

2.) STOP SPENDING MONEY ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPENDITURES!!

3.) Level fund the budget!

4.) Veto anything with earmarks attached, until Congress learns.

5.) Close the Dept. Ed., Dept. Ag., Dept. Commerce, Dept. Trans., Dept. Energy, TVA, Bureau of Land Mgmt, EPA, ATF, Federal milk board, NPR, PBS, and while we are cutting the size of government, lets give the U.N. notice that we are cancelling our membership and requesting their eviction, perhaps they will enjoy the climate more in Paris.

6.) Use the savings from the above item to buy down the national debt.

7.) Pass a flat tax, and close down 90% of the IRS! keep 10% of the auditors just to keep everyone honest.

8.) Appoint only Strict Constructionists to the bench.

9.) Explain to the State Dept. that they serve at the presidents pleasure and if they can not get on board with the above enumerated policies they can clear out their desks.

10.) Tell the Pentagon we want our guys to win and come home as soon as possible, they are to take the gloves off and do what is necessary to achieve this.

11.) Explain to the press that they can report whatever they choose about the war so long as it is the truth. Lies in print will be prosecuted! (yes I know that this point is probably not practical, but it still pisses me off)

I will expand upon this at a later date.


Thank you for allowing me to rant.

[Maggie_T]

So when are you running for office, Ed? And where do we send contributions? ;)

[Timberwolf]

No kidding...I've got a couple hundred spare dollars layin' around here somewhere.

[EdmundDantes]

So when are you running for office, Ed? And where do we send contributions? ;)


ROFL, I already chair my towns budget committee, and thanks to having pissed of my police chief by filing an ethics complaint against him, I couldnt get elected dog catcher now.


if you ever have time with which you have nothing to do, you can find out more by googling Mark Acciard, that will bring u the press accounts of my 2 years low intensity war with him.

[EdmundDantes]

No kidding...I've got a couple hundred spare dollars layin' around here somewhere.


LOL, thank you for the vote of confidence

[DoctorDoom]

I give your list two :thumb: :thumb:, brer ED, but those highly desirable things will happen shortly after we prove that flying saucers are real.

[EdmundDantes]

I love it! You would definately have MY vote.

I have one other pet issue: local laws that make it all but impossible to start your own business. From zoning on there is a seeming endless horde of people empowered to tell you no. This needs to be corrected.

really? starting your own business is reasonably easy in NH. Mine is a sole-proprietorship all that required was for me to apply for a business lisence for the DBA.

My wife's Cheer gym is a C corp. and that was simple too, $85 filing fee, 7 pages of forms to fill out and viola!!


You may be in the wrong state if it is that difficult. Or maybe the problem is local

[Beowulf]

ROFL, I already chair my towns budget committee, and thanks to having pissed of my police chief by filing an ethics complaint against him, I couldnt get elected dog catcher now.



I'd like to hear that story!!!!

[EdmundDantes]

I'd like to hear that story!!!!

Well here is the short and sassy version;

My town has a part-time police chief who got himself elected selectman. When he came in as chief and made a request of the selectmen to withdraw funds from the police donation account, then as selectman opened a public hearing on it, and voted to approve his own request.

I asked the Code of Ethics committee to ask him to recuse himself from dealing with police matters, they said "well it's the chief" I asked the court to do the same, they ordered him to recuse himself from dealing withpolice matters as a selectman. He violated the order, the court found him in contempt.

He appealed to the NH supreme court, they affirmed the lower courts order.

He doesnt like me very much.

[BarkleUSA]

:claps:

Great list Ed! I would add a few more:

12.) Make the judiciary subject to 10 year term limits and removal by petition of We The People for activist overreaching rulings.

13.) Establish a new world body called the United Democracy Nations with the US, Britain and Australia (and any other moral country that stands up to despotism, communism and socialism).

14.) Replace the wage taxe with a flat tax and impose tariffs on Chinese and Japanese imports.

15.) Establish an American history test (in English only!) including Constitutional questions that must be passed before voting.

16.) Change the voting age to 35.

17.) Disband HSA and require that all men and heads of households without criminal records be required to carry a firearm.

18.) Deport Jimmy Carter, George Soros and the Dixie Chicks to Cuba for reeducation.

19.) Build a fence around San Francisco and declare it a quarantine zone.

20.) Make trial lawyers pay the amount they are seeking if they loose the case – no more spin-the-wheel money grabs without consequence.

[Black Phoenix]

21. No more allowing judges to legislate

22. Stop trying to take away guns as the solution to every problem, empower people to defend themselves.

23. When someone gets sentenced to jail, they need a steady diet of bread and water and a set of encyclopedias for entertainment not cable telivision.

24. Close down all public schools and use vouchers only for those who can prove themselves to be in poverty.

25. (Sorry, this goes against a one that was stated already) Lift all tariffs and simply refuse to trade with communist countries and other forms of dictatorship that put our producers at a disadvantage.

26. Forget the age, enlisment is mandatory for the right to vote, and for crying out loud, clean house with those medical check ups. I'm getting pissed off that I gotta delay my entry because of a car accident from which I recieved not one solitary injury!

27. Actually enforce standards of public decency, if a guy's walking around with his briefs showing because his pants are falling down, I want him fined!

28. Ban abortion.

29. Throw everyone who committs abortion in JAIL, and work up the sentence progressively until its the DEATH penalty.

30. No one gets privilages for being black or any other color, from the government.

31. If I wanna hire a white guy, it's my business. If I want to hire a black guy over a hispanic guy, again, my business. The man who becomes shallow and starts judging based on color, will probably go out of business. In the mean time, would the governmet please, MYOB!

32. No one save the aformentioned idiot from going out of business... better yet, stop saving the day all the time. One business dies and another takes it's place, stop trying to keep things from changing.

33. Ya know that rule about innocent until proven guilty? It should apply to cops and military to.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

BarkleUSA:
Change the voting age to 35.

:rolleyes: Draft age, too? Or will you make an exception for veterans & those currently in the military to participate in the electoral process for which they're laying down their lives?

[Maggie_T]

EdmundDantes - Barkle, for running ticket! :thumb:

Barkle, I particularly like your 13 and 18 points. You da man!

[pinqy]

I'd like to hear the specific objections to the following agencies: the Dept. Ed., Dept. Ag., Dept. Commerce, Dept. Trans., Dept. Energy, TVA, Bureau of Land Mgmt, EPA, ATF, Federal milk board, NPR, PBS. NPR and PBS are not government run, and only 2% of NPR's funding is direct from the government, so the option there should simply be stop funding, not shutting down. Shutting down Commerce is an interesting idea...no interest in the GDP? And the Census is a Constitutional requirement. Interstate commerce is constitutionally a government interest, so Dept of Transportation seems valid to me. And who should take over Nuclear Security if DoE closes?

[DoctorDoom]

Change the voting age to 35.Far more effective: change the voting IQ to a minimum of 120. That would eliminate 99.99% of liberals.

<hr>
I'd like to hear the specific objections to the following agencies: the Dept. Ed., Dept. Ag., Dept. Commerce, Dept. Trans., Dept. Energy, TVA, Bureau of Land Mgmt, EPA, ATF, Federal milk board, NPR, PBS.Not one of them is justified by the US Constitution for the fedgov. That is reason enough for anyone other than Big Government libeRATs.

[Lazarus]

I'd like to hear the specific objections to the following agencies: the Dept. Ed.Government run education is a fiasco...

Dept. Ag.This is the group that encouraged farmers to plant lots of wheat because President Jimmuh had cut a deal with the Russians to buy it - which of course fell thru... Let Farmers manage their business
Dept. CommerceWhat does government know about commerce - its not the business they are in...

Dept. TransOther than organizing the interstate highway system, what have they done for me today?

Dept. EnergyUtterly unnecessary - A president Jimmuh creation...

TVAGrossly mismanaged - Their Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant has been offline for most of its existance due to mismanagement...

Bureau of Land Mgmt, EPALump these two together as homes for radical leftist enviro-nazis to use the muscle of the federal government to destroy American industry and Farming/Ranching... The EPA and its baby brother, BLM, are in my mind the most evil departments in our government, far outpacing the IRS in abject open attacks on the American way of life...

ATFRegular and systematic violation of the 2nd Amendment... We dont need the Fed government regulating guns, liquor, or tobacco... The arrogance of this organization is incredible... This department belongs in Communist France, not America...

Federal milk boardDo we actually have to address the ridiculous presumption of this department?

NPR, PBS. NPR and PBS are not government run, and only 2% of NPR's funding is direct from the government, so the option there should simply be stop funding, not shutting down.Ok, I'll go with your suggestion - cut off all funding to NPR, PBS... They are simply national outlets for Communist Propoganda and attacks on the American Culture... And while we're at it, cut off all funds to the NEA as well - Artists dont need government funds in order to create - These aren't artists - they are welfare babies sucking on the Federal nipple...

And who should take over Nuclear Security if DoE closes?The government isnt doing security on the Nuclear industry now - what makes you think the government is securing the Nuclear industry? Nuclear power plants across this country are managed and secured by the private corporations who own the plants... Alabama Power Company secures their plant... Georgia Power Company secures their two plants... etc... The government is not involved other than to send bureaucratic regulators to periodically pretend to inspect... And they are known in the industry as complete jokes...

I short, everything on the list could indeed be eliminated and this country would be safer, freer, and more prosperous... I say, shut em down...

[pinqy]

Not one of them is justified by the US Constitution for the fedgov. That is reason enough for anyone other than Big Government libeRATs.
Article I, Section 8 lays down the powers of Congress and "
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Article II, sections 2 and 3 give the President the power to appoint Officers for Executive Departments, and requires him to collect information on the State of the Union and to execute all laws.

So which powers of Congress are we talking about?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Department of Commerce, especially the Bureau of Economic Analysis which calculates the GDP and analyzes the effects of all taxes duties imposts excises etc. The Department of Agriculture plays a role here too in collecting statistics on agriculture. And since the Department of Energy owns and is responsible for all nuclear weapons, they fit in here too.


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce (esp International Trade Administration), Tennessee Valley Authority (so held by the Supreme Court in Ashwander v Tennessee Valley Authority (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/297/288.html) (1936)


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Dept of Commerce (National Institute of Standards and Technology).


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Department of Education, Department of Commerce (Patent and Trademark Office).


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;Department of Energy

Article I section 1 requires a decennial census and the Census Bureau is part of the Dept of Commerce.

[Black Phoenix]

I'm gonna say there are several reasons I do not understand re-setting the voting age. First off, many of those on our side are younger than 35 and are already smarter than those we're against. Simply making it to 35 in this country isn't much of an accomplishment, c'mon, we have people who are sixty with mush for brains, age does not mean wisdom, it all depends on what you've done with your life. It use to be that only land owners could vote... no I don't want to go back to that because then I and MANY others could never vote, however, back then we didn't have something we do have today. An army. In that army you can prove that you care for this country. We eliminate the America bashers from the vote and we'll probably clean house in both parties. Sorry, but denying a Seargent in the marine corps the right to vote because he's only twenty-nine is a dumb idea.

Me, I'm about to enter and you can bet that I'll still want my right to vote, after committing to possibly die for it. And in the end, I really do think as a twenty-two-year-old private first class, I'll have earned the right to vote more than some guy who's thirty five, but spent the last 13 years or so, joining groups to bash this country, and now lives on the street.

[Marcster]

34) Tell the United Nations to go fly a kite! Stop asking the UN for their permission/approval! We're America and we are going to do what we feel is best for our country. We don't need their corruption or their socialist thinking.

If the member countries don't like it, NO PROBLEM. No one is forcing them to trade with us, and we'll stop vacationing there and close our military bases in their country.

In fact, let's kick the UN out of NYC. Send 'em to France -- they'll be more comfortable there anyway.

My http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/Marcster2005/Smileypad/Things/thdeebac87.gif.

[Rhino]

First off, many of those on our side are younger than 35 and are already smarter than those we're against.Yeah. just ask a teenager. They'll be happy to tell you how smart they are.

[Black Phoenix]

Yeah. just ask a teenager. They'll be happy to tell you how smart they are.

I'll take a conservative fesh out of highschool over a sixty-year-old medicare loving hippie any day.

[EdmundDantes]

I'd like to hear the specific objections to the following agencies: the Dept. Ed., Dept. Ag., Dept. Commerce, Dept. Trans., Dept. Energy, TVA, Bureau of Land Mgmt, EPA, ATF, Federal milk board, NPR, PBS. NPR and PBS are not government run, and only 2% of NPR's funding is direct from the government, so the option there should simply be stop funding, not shutting down. Shutting down Commerce is an interesting idea...no interest in the GDP? And the Census is a Constitutional requirement. Interstate commerce is constitutionally a government interest, so Dept of Transportation seems valid to me. And who should take over Nuclear Security if DoE closes?

Absolutely; Dept Ed.- Unconstitutional, $142M wasted without educating a single child, political payoff to NEA by Carter.

Dept. Ag.- When est. 12.5M family farms, 1144 Ag. Agents, Now 2M family farms, 1.4M ag. agents; waste of meny, bloated bureaucracy, Unconstitutional.

Dept. of Commerce- Unconstitutional, junket factory for congress., no discernable, quanitfiable benefit to country for the $800B wasted on this Dept. since inception.

Dept. Trans.- originally set up to oversee trucking and airline industry, both deregulated, now obsolete, Oh, and Unconstitutional

Dept. Energy- Originally set up to monitor crucial war supply, now not needed, nor is it Constitutional, nor does it accomplish anything since the end of the Manhattan project.

TVA- Just where in the constitution does it say the FEDERAL government is supposed to provide power, and do so in such a manner that they charge less than 50% of their costs in providing that power.

Land Mgmnt- Do I really need to spell this out? Break out the park service into a stand alone agency, sell off 90% of the government owned land to private individuals, no need for Dept. Oh, and no provision in the Constitution

all the rest are; UNCONSTITUTIONAL, intrusive, establish laws by bureaucracy, with no representation to the people, in the case of NPR, PBS, and NEA(arts, not ed.) if they can survive by donations great, but not by dollars extroted through taxes.

Any Questions?:roar:

[pinqy]

Absolutely; Dept Ed.- Unconstitutional, $142M wasted without educating a single child, political payoff to NEA by Carter. General Welfare of the Nation by promoting and regulating education. Constitutional under Article I, Sec 8

Dept. Ag.- When est. 12.5M family farms, 1144 Ag. Agents, Now 2M family farms, 1.4M ag. agents; waste of meny, bloated bureaucracy, Unconstitutional.[/b]Promoting and supporting American Agriculture using subisdies and assistance to prevent dependence on foreign agriculture: Common Defense and National Welfare. Collection of Agriculture statistics, including farm labor, and ag prices. Necessary for regulating commerce.

Dept. of Commerce- Unconstitutional, junket factory for congress., no discernable, quanitfiable benefit to country for the $800B wasted on this Dept. since inception.Dept of Commerce includes the Census Bureau which conducts the Census; mandatory under the Constitution. Also includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a Constitional power, and the Patent and Trademark Office, another Constitutional power. Also the BEA, who calculates the GDP, necessary for regulating commerce and the overall economy...all Constitutional.

Dept. Trans.- originally set up to oversee trucking and airline industry, both deregulated, now obsolete, Oh, and UnconstitutionalConstitutional under commerce regulation, establishing post roads, and general welfare.

Dept. Energy- Originally set up to monitor crucial war supply, now not needed, nor is it Constitutional, nor does it accomplish anything since the end of the Manhattan project.Owns and is responsible for all nuclear weapons...national defense.

TVA- Just where in the constitution does it say the FEDERAL government is supposed to provide power, and do so in such a manner that they charge less than 50% of their costs in providing that power.However it is Constitutional to regulate waterways...providing power is not the main function and is only a side effect.

Land Mgmnt- Do I really need to spell this out? Break out the park service into a stand alone agency, sell off 90% of the government owned land to private individuals, no need for Dept. Oh, and no provision in the ConstitutionSince its roots go back to even before there was a Constitution, and there were no problems with its incarnations at the timethe Constitution was written, it seems a bit odd to say that it's been wrong for over 200 years. And it's not a Department.

[EdmundDantes]

General Welfare of the Nation by promoting and regulating education. Constitutional under Article I, Sec 8

Promoting and supporting American Agriculture using subisdies and assistance to prevent dependence on foreign agriculture: Common Defense and National Welfare. Collection of Agriculture statistics, including farm labor, and ag prices. Necessary for regulating commerce.

You MUST be Joking!! Congress ALWAYS stretches the General Welfare clause to cover anything they wish to do. First, Education was a product of much greater quality BEFORE the Government took it over. It is currently a much better quality product outside of the governments control, and for the most part at much less investment. Second, it says to PROMOTE, not totally control and dictate to the public what is their welfare. Third, the current public education system hardly promotes the general welfare, but traps mainly poor, minority kids in a prison where the goal is to shuffle them through the system thereby guaranteeing hem a life of mediocrity.
Dept of Commerce includes the Census Bureau which conducts the Census; mandatory under the Constitution. Also includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a Constitional power, and the Patent and Trademark Office, another Constitutional power. Also the BEA, who calculates the GDP, necessary for regulating commerce and the overall economy...all Constitutional.

Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, the constitutional functions such as the census may be broken out and continue, these functions do not require a cabinet level agency with a multi-billion dollar budget that is mainly wasted.

Constitutional under commerce regulation, establishing post roads, and general welfare.

Owns and is responsible for all nuclear weapons...national defense.

Wouldn't this finction more logically fall under the pentagons purview?

[queue]

The Department of Energy was established in 1977. The U.S. had nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, and other power plants prior to 1977.

The Department of Transportation was established in 1966. There were roads, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 which created todays interstate system, railroads, airlines, and airports prior to 1966.

The "general welfare" part of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;". According to Madison in the Federalist papers number 41 (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm) that section of the constitution is better read as "to raise money for the general welfare" and the "general welfare" where that money is to be used is limited to the sections of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that follows the "general welfare" line.Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

A column (http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991123.shtml) by Joe Sobran (http://www.sobran.com/bio.shtml) concerning the "general welfare" section of the U.S. Constitution.

[Timberwolf]

pinqy (etal)...GENERAL welfare, not SPECIFIC welfare....think about it. "provide for the general welfare" means "provide those services which the people CANNOT provide for themselves".

[EdmundDantes]

pinqy (etal)...GENERAL welfare, not SPECIFIC welfare....think about it. "provide for the general welfare" means "provide those services which the people CANNOT provide for themselves".


Still sincerely waiting for Pingy's reply................

[pinqy]

You MUST be Joking!! Congress ALWAYS stretches the General Welfare clause to cover anything they wish to do.So? That doesn't make it unconstitutional.


First, Education was a product of much greater quality BEFORE the Government took it over.The fedgov has not taken over education. And, just because I know you can't do it, show me your evidence that it was better before the alleged control, when the control started, and how the gov controls it. It is currently a much better quality product outside of the governments control, and for the most part at much less investment.Of course. Private schools pay teachers more and can be selective about who they take as students and generous in dismissing students.
Second, it says to PROMOTE, not totally control and dictate to the public what is their welfare.And? The burden is on you to show that this is happening.
Third, the current public education system hardly promotes the general welfare, but traps mainly poor, minority kids in a prison where the goal is to shuffle them through the system thereby guaranteeing hem a life of mediocrity.But on the other hand many poor minority kids get an education, however minimal. But that's all on the states, not the Dept of Education.

Dept of Commerce includes the Census Bureau which conducts the Census; mandatory under the Constitution. Also includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a Constitional power, and the Patent and Trademark Office, another Constitutional power. Also the BEA, who calculates the GDP, necessary for regulating commerce and the overall economy...all Constitutional.

Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, the constitutional functions such as the census may be broken out and continue, these functions do not require a cabinet level agency with a multi-billion dollar budget that is mainly wasted.Oh, it was clear that you had no idea what the Departments actually do. You clearly said get rid of the departments, and didn't even mention the functions they did except in a distorted manner.

owns and is responsible for all nuclear weapons...national defense.

Wouldn't this finction more logically fall under the pentagons purview?It never has.

Ok, now a question you won't answer. All you've said so far is that you think these agencies don't do much and waste money. But that doesn't make something unconstitutional. "Stretching" a clause doesn't make it unconstitutional. The Constitution allows for but doesn't specify any executive departments. So any one is constitutional if Congress allows it.
I'd love to see your, so far non-existent, argument about how they are not legal. An assertion is not an argument.

[EdmundDantes]

So? That doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Fifth try! computr keeps crashing!!!

first refer to post #27 above. Madison stated that general welfare clause was limited by the enumerated powers. As to proving the decline of education, I can offer little empirical evidence but a wealth of circumstantial evidence exists. In 1821 Alexis de Toqueville stated that the "average American possesses a better than average education, they can read and write, and the favorite pastime seems to be reading or playing chess." Contrast that with the Presidents commission on Education reports form 1983, 1992, 1996, and 2002. "21% of high school seniors can not read or write well enough to fill out a job application" "41% of high school seniors can not place the civil war in the correct half century" "81% of college freshmen require remedial math or english courses to replace what the high schools failed to teach" "64% of high school seniors can not name the primary author of the Constitution"


The fedgov has not taken over education. And, just because I know you can't do it, show me your evidence that it was better before the alleged control, when the control started, and how the gov controls it. Of course. Private schools pay teachers more and can be selective about who they take as students and generous in dismissing students.
And? The burden is on you to show that this is happening.
But on the other hand many poor minority kids get an education, however minimal. But that's all on the states, not the Dept of Education.

US dept. of Ed. dictates educational policy particularly regarding administration of schools to State depts. Ed. from there to local SAU's. They threaten the withholding of fed funds if unfunded mandates are not followed. US Dept. ed. formed in 1979 as a payoff to the NEA and the AFT by Jimmy Carter. If they were necesary however did we get along for 203 years without them? And again your pay statement is wrong. According to the dept. ed. pay survey in 2002, the average public school K-12 teacher's pay in 2002 was $44,650/yr.(but it is not a yr. but only 8 months) The average private school K-12 teacher pay, $34,465/yr.
For the best side by side comparison refer to NEAHP survey of NYC schools in 2002. They compared stats for the NYC public schols Vs. Catholic archdiocese of Ny school district; NYC 800,000 students, Catholic 184,000; Average per pupil expenditure, NYC $11450, Catholic $5675; Graduation rate, NYC 52%, Catholic 92%; Average teacher pay, NYC $69,100, Catholic $42,650; People employed by the NYC Chancellors office 6731, 1700 of which make over $100k, 450 of which make over $150k, Tha Catholic superintendent unit employs 34 people average salary $ 66,345; The survey found that they both pull students from the same neighborhoods, both bad and good, and the same demographic and income levels, with no higher rejection rate among catholic than public.



Oh, it was clear that you had no idea what the Departments actually do. You clearly said get rid of the departments, and didn't even mention the functions they did except in a distorted manner.

I didnt think that I had to explain each and every function, obviously I was talking about Constitutionality, functions dictated by the constitution can be performed without a cabinet level agency spending multi-billions to do it, and everything else that is unconstitutional. Strange that you use the proper functions to defend the dept. but you do not mention the corporate welfare, and the congressional junkets provided, and the corruption rampant in influence peddling.

It never has.

I never said it had, what I saidwas wouldn't more properly fall under the pentagon, than dept. Energy, you choose to point out that it never has. Also it is odd to use the nuke argument to justify the Dept. when nukes,a nd nuke plants predate the dept., if it was no necesary how did we get along without it? and you are wrong, prior to the dept. of energy, the manhattan project, and it nuclear weapons were under the control of the war dept. as a matter of fact the project was headed by Gen. Leslie Groves.

Ok, now a question you won't answer. All you've said so far is that you think these agencies don't do much and waste money. But that doesn't make something unconstitutional. "Stretching" a clause doesn't make it unconstitutional. The Constitution allows for but doesn't specify any executive departments. So any one is constitutional if Congress allows it.
I'd love to see your, so far non-existent, argument about how they are not legal. An assertion is not an argument.

WRONG!!! The Constitution does NOt give Congress the authority to decide what is constitutional, it BINDS the congress and limits their authority!!! The federal government as a whole has LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS for just that purpose, ALL other powers NOT SPECIFICALLY listed are reserved for the states and the people. It doesn't have to list any depts., it lists functions, all other are prohibited unless the people give their permission.

[pinqy]

WRONG!!! The Constitution does NOt give Congress the authority to decide what is constitutional, it BINDS the congress and limits their authority!!! I haven't said differently. The Constitution DOES give Congress the right "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (Article I Section 8). So that does give Congress the authority to decide what is "necessary and proper," obviously subject to judicial review.

The federal government as a whole has LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS for just that purpose, ALL other powers NOT SPECIFICALLY listed are reserved for the states and the people. It doesn't have to list any depts., it lists functions, all other are prohibited unless the people give their permission.Sure. But who gets to interpret what those functions are when the wording is vague? What EXACTLY is meant by "General Welfare?" What specific powers come under "regulate Commerce?" Even at the time the Constitution was ratified there was debate as to whether "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" was seperate to the specific powers listed next, or whether it was a preamble and only those powers were given to Congress. You can't just come in now and state authoritatively that they absolutely only have one interpretation.

ETA: For one particular case, the TVA did face a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled that it was a constituional power to regulate waterways so the appropriate agency could be created to do that and the power generating capacity was only a side effect and not the main purpose so that the TVA is constitutional. While you may disagree with the decision, you can't ignore that it did pass a constitutional challenge.

[EdmundDantes]

I haven't said differently. The Constitution DOES give Congress the right "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (Article I Section 8). So that does give Congress the authority to decide what is "necessary and proper," obviously subject to judicial review.

Sure. But who gets to interpret what those functions are when the wording is vague? What EXACTLY is meant by "General Welfare?" What specific powers come under "regulate Commerce?" Even at the time the Constitution was ratified there was debate as to whether "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" was seperate to the specific powers listed next, or whether it was a preamble and only those powers were given to Congress. You can't just come in now and state authoritatively that they absolutely only have one interpretation.

ETA: For one particular case, the TVA did face a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled that it was a constituional power to regulate waterways so the appropriate agency could be created to do that and the power generating capacity was only a side effect and not the main purpose so that the TVA is constitutional. While you may disagree with the decision, you can't ignore that it did pass a constitutional challenge.

WOW! five tries with a tempermental computer and you dont even address 90% of my response, I am feeling let down....

You said in your previous post; The Constitution allows for but doesn't specify any executive departments. So any one is constitutional if Congress allows it.

I responded to that by saying;

WRONG!!! The Constitution does NOt give Congress the authority to decide what is constitutional, it BINDS the congress and limits their authority!!! The federal government as a whole has LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS for just that purpose, ALL other powers NOT SPECIFICALLY listed are reserved for the states and the people. It doesn't have to list any depts., it lists functions, all other are prohibited unless the people give their permission.

And our response to this is;
I haven't said differently. The Constitution DOES give Congress the right "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (Article I Section 8). So that does give Congress the authority to decide what is "necessary and proper," obviously subject to judicial review.

I am missing something here, I am still waiting for your justification for the Depts of Ed, Energy, Trans, Ag, EPA, BLM, etc.

As for your defense of TVA, you will notice that the justification was to regulate and develop the waterways, which is constitutional, but neglects the fact that that comprises only a small fraction of what it atually does today.

And I am VERY surprised that you offerred no defense against the Public School system. You were strident in your initial condemnation of my opinions in your first post. you stated that I could not prove the decline of American education under government control, I offerred alot of evidence but you choose to ignore it. This is not a debate but an ever changing arguement.

[pinqy]

You are missing something. Let me try slowly.
The Constitution grants Congress certain legislative powers, some specific, some vague (General Welfare and regulate commerce)
The Constitution puts the execution and enforcement of Congressional legistlation in the hands of the President and allows him to appoint officers and departments to do this.
Congress needs to legislate the authority for specific officers and departments.
Any of these laws, including the creation of departments is subject to judicial review when and if challenged in the courts.

Therefore, any department created through the proper legislature is Constitutional. The specific laws that grant power and authority and the laws that are enforced by these departments may or may not be Constitutional, which decision is made by the Judicial Branch when challenged. Until such time as a law is found to be unconstitutional, it must be presumed to be constitutional. Therefore, the burden is on you to point out specifically what is not constitutional about the individual legislation. "Waste" is not grounds to show something is not constitutional. Although I'm sure you've already researched them because you wouldn't speak without knowing what you're talking about, here is the legislation creating the departments and agencies you've questioned.

Dept of Agriculture, est 1862: Title 7 Chapter 55 USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/7/chapters/55/sections/section_2201.html)

Dept of Commerce, est 1903 Title 15 Chapter 40 USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/15/chapters/40/toc.html)

Dept of Transportation, est 1966 Title 49 Subtitle I USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/49/subtitles/i/chapters/1/sections/section_101.html)

Dept of Energy, est 1977Title 42 Chapter 84 USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/84/subchapters/i/sections/section_7111.html)

Dept of Education, est 1980 Title 20 Chap 48 USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/20/chapters/48/subchapters/i/sections/section_3401.html)

Tennessee Valley Authority, est 1933 Title 16 Chapter 12A USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/16/chapters/12a/sections/section_831.html)

Bureau of Land Management est 1946 Title 43 Chapter 1 USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/43/chapters/1/sections/section_2.html)

Environmental Protection Agency, est 1970 Title 42 Chapter 55 USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/55/subchapters/i/sections/section_4331.html)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Title 6, Chapter 1, Subchapter XI USC (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/6/chapters/1/subchapters/xi/parts/b/sections/section_531.html)

There's no such entity as the "Federal Milk Board" but you probably mean the stuff from Title 7 Chapter 93 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/7/chapters/93/sections/section%5F6401.html)

PBS and NPR fall under Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=47&sec=396)

As for your defense of TVA, you will notice that the justification was to regulate and develop the waterways, which is constitutional, but neglects the fact that that comprises only a small fraction of what it atually does today.
What is the money from its power operations used for? It's fulfilling its Constitutional powers.

And I am VERY surprised that you offerred no defense against the Public School system. You were strident in your initial condemnation of my opinions in your first post. you stated that I could not prove the decline of American education under government control, I offerred alot of evidence but you choose to ignore it. Because the Public School System is not run by the Dept of Education or the Federal government. It's State and local run. I assumed you knew that.

[Rhino]

Because the Public School System is not run by the Dept of Education or the Federal government. It's State and local run. I assumed you knew that.Sure could have fooled the local school systems around here. They are very much governed by federal requirements. My wife is a teacher and she talks about it all the time.

[Timberwolf]

Dept of Agriculture, est 1862:
Dept of Commerce, est 1903
Dept of Transportation, est 1966
Dept of Energy, est 1977
Dept of Education, est 1980
Tennessee Valley Authority, est 1933
Bureau of Land Management est 1946
Environmental Protection Agency, est 1970
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
PBS and NPR fall under
Please tell us HOW these fall under "general welfare" for, if they do not, they are not constitutional because they would be provided for by the STATES or by the PEOPLE, according to the 9^th and 10^th amendments in the BoR.

[pinqy]

Please tell us HOW these fall under "general welfare" for, if they do not, they are not constitutional because they would be provided for by the STATES or by the PEOPLE, according to the 9<SUP>th</SUP> and 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendments in the BoR.
I linked to the legislature...for almost all of them, I linked to "findings of Congress" which says exactly under what powers they fall. In each act is also a section entitled "relationship to the States" which details the limitations between Fed and State powers for the area. I did the work of researching it, you can now read it for yourself and not have to take my word.

[Timberwolf]

pinq...I don't CARE what powers Congress "claims" it has, it is granted certain powers by the Constitution. HOW do those agencies "provide for the general welfare"? If they do not do so, they are - according to the 9<SUP>th</SUP> and 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendments - unconstitutional as they would be usurping powers RESERVED to the STATES and/or the PEOPLE.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have the power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I don't see anything in this section that allows Congress to put into place a massive bureaucracy, through which this country's resouces may be sucked dry by "bringing home the bacon", in order to make a career out of what is to be temporary service to one's country...does anyone else?

[pinqy]

pinq...I don't CARE what powers Congress "claims" it has, it is granted certain powers by the Constitution. HOW do those agencies "provide for the general welfare"? Again, it says in the legislation creating the agencies under which Constitutional power it's authorized and what the Constitutional relationship with the states is. I'll be nice and quote what the legislation for Dept of Energy (which you could have just read for yourself by clicking the link) says: 42 USC 7111 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/84/subchapters/i/sections/section_7111.html)The Congress of the United States finds that -
(1) the United States faces an increasing shortage of
nonrenewable energy resources;
(2) this energy shortage and our increasing dependence on
foreign energy supplies present a serious threat to the national
security of the United States and to the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens;
(3) a strong national energy program is needed to meet the
present and future energy needs of the Nation consistent with
overall national economic, environmental and social goals;
(4) responsibility for energy policy, regulation, and research,
development and demonstration is fragmented in many departments
and agencies and thus does not allow for the comprehensive,
centralized focus necessary for effective coordination of energy
supply and conservation programs; and
(5) formulation and implementation of a national energy program
require the integration of major Federal energy functions into a
single department in the executive branch.
And as for the 9th and 10th Ammendments: 42 USC 7113 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/84/subchapters/i/sections/section_7113.html):
Whenever any proposed action by the Department conflicts with the energy plan of any State, the Department shall give due consideration to the needs of such State, and where practicable, shall attempt to resolve such conflict through consultations with appropriate State officials. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any State over matters exclusively within its jurisdiction.
What is unconstitutional about any of that? Within the powers of General Welfare, National Defense, and probably Regulate Commerce.



I don't see anything in this section that allows Congress to put into place a massive bureaucracy, through which this country's resouces may be sucked dry by "bringing home the bacon", in order to make a career out of what is to be temporary service to one's country...does anyone else?And you see nothing that says it's unconstitutional either. A Department can be bloated, wasteful, even useless...but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. And just because it's Constitutional doesn't mean it's necessary or that it doesn't need to change.

[Big Coffee]

1. Embrace the 10th Ammendment.

2. Embrace the 10th Ammendment.

3. Embrace the 10th Ammendment.

etc.

[EdmundDantes]

Ok, Mr. Pingy

I have tried the same debates with you and you keep refraining from offerring an answer to the specific question that I asked, and Our esteemed Rhino echoed, which is:

How do these depts. as well as the way the Dept. of Ed. currently dictates educational policy conform to MADISON'S IDEA of the General Welfare clause as he laid out in Federalist#41, I believe it was?

[pinqy]

Ok, Mr. Pingy

I have tried the same debates with you and you keep refraining from offerring an answer to the specific question that I asked, and Our esteemed Rhino echoed, which is:

How do these depts. as well as the way the Dept. of Ed. currently dictates educational policy conform to MADISON'S IDEA of the General Welfare clause as he laid out in Federalist#41, I believe it was?
They don't. But they conform to HAMILTON'S IDEAS on general taxation as he layed out in Federalist #30-36.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/pdfus/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=464402#post464402)
pinq...I don't CARE what powers Congress "claims" it has, it is granted certain powers by the Constitution. HOW do those agencies "provide for the general welfare"?


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Again, it says in the legislation creating the agencies under which Constitutional power it's authorized and what the Constitutional relationship with the states is. I'll be nice and quote what the legislation for Dept of Energy (which you could have just read for yourself by clicking the link) says:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">42 USC 7111 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/84/subchapters/i/sections/section_7111.html)The Congress of the United States finds that -
(1) the United States faces an increasing shortage of
nonrenewable energy resources;
(2) this energy shortage and our increasing dependence on
foreign energy supplies present a serious threat to the national
security of the United States and to the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens;
(3) a strong national energy program is needed to meet the
present and future energy needs of the Nation consistent with
overall national economic, environmental and social goals;
(4) responsibility for energy policy, regulation, and research,
development and demonstration is fragmented in many departments
and agencies and thus does not allow for the comprehensive,
centralized focus necessary for effective coordination of energy
supply and conservation programs; and
(5) formulation and implementation of a national energy program
require the integration of major Federal energy functions into a
single department in the executive branch.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That is evidence the department needs to go the way of the dodo. We HAVE NO SHORTAGE of non-renewable resources in this country. We have enough oil in the shales of Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming to supply our country for over 700 years. The reserves in the entire Middle East are miniscule in comparison.
And as for the 9th and 10th Ammendments:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">42 USC 7113 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/84/subchapters/i/sections/section_7113.html):
Whenever any proposed action by the Department conflicts with the energy plan of any State, the Department shall give due consideration to the needs of such State, and where practicable, shall attempt to resolve such conflict through consultations with appropriate State officials. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any State over matters exclusively within its jurisdiction.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
What is unconstitutional about any of that? Within the powers of General Welfare, National Defense, and probably Regulate Commerce.


Man, you're really reaching. What do you not understand about:IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I don't see anything in this section that allows Congress to put into place a massive bureaucracy, through which this country's resouces may be sucked dry by "bringing home the bacon", in order to make a career out of what is to be temporary service to one's country...does anyone else? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And you see nothing that says it's unconstitutional either. A Department can be bloated, wasteful, even useless...but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. And just because it's Constitutional doesn't mean it's necessary or that it doesn't need to change.
Yes, I do...Since I do NOT see anything that specifically GRANTS the FEDERAL government the power to create the bureacracy, it does not HAVE the power to do so, as this would usurp that power from the states.

[EdmundDantes]

They don't. But they conform to HAMILTON'S IDEAS on general taxation as he layed out in Federalist #30-36.


Oh please quote..... You STILL haven't showed me how the development of these depts. conforms to the original intent of the general welfare clause. You have not even showed me how they DO benefit the general public, at least more than they harm it.

[Wolfcounsel]

Uh, pinqy. That's "general welfare", not general welfare bums", in case you haven't noticed.

[Timberwolf]

They don't. But they conform to HAMILTON'S IDEAS on general taxation as he layed out in Federalist #30-36.
I think you best re-read those, if that's what you got from them.