No-Fail Grading Systems?

[n8]

I knew I was going to get called a liberal when I suggested a program that "redistributed" wealth. My contention with the Pell Grant argument is that the system would be fundamentally discriminatory unless it was offered at the federal level.

You neatly left this out, try to defeat my argument instead of quoting me out of context.

And why do you resort to the ad hominem attacks saying that I don't trust the people? I used one program as an example of the positive influence of the ED. If you can suggest a workable alternative and justify the dismissal of the ED without resorting to merely calling it unconstitutional, please do so.

Further developments in the United States Code and US case law have been made since the constitution was written. And it was designed so that it would be able to meet the needs of the citizenship beyond it's literal word. I'm sure that if the ED or any of the other existing Cabinet offices were actually unconstitutional, a case would have made it to the Supreme Court on the matter.

[SB Shock]

I knew I was going to get called a liberal when I suggested a program that "redistributed" wealth. My contention with the Pell Grant argument is that the system would be fundamentally discriminatory unless it was offered at the federal level.

Why would the system be "fundamentally discriminatory"? What is the fundamental that is there doing this?

You neatly left this out, try to defeat my argument instead of quoting me out of context.

Actually I ran out of time (it was lunch hour (err 1/2 hour) and was either post what I had or nothing. And, I'm not trying to defeat you or change your mind because you know that not going to happen. My only hope is it will make somebody who sitting on the fence on the issue to examine it little closer from maybe a different perspective.

And why do you resort to the ad hominem attacks saying that I don't trust the people?

I don't see it as a Ad Hominen attack, I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm just pointing out that from my perspective your argument seems to be saying that the representatives of state are incapable of doing the job their citizens sent them to.

I used one program as an example of the positive influence of the ED.

So the U.S. Government give the state of kansas $250 million (estimated 2009 #'s) a year for pell grants. That represents less than 2% of the money that the Federal Government takes from the state.

Why does the federal government need to tax Kansas and then decide how much they give the state back? How much effectiveness is lost because U.S. Dept. of Education has to be a middleman.

By the Dept. of Education own admission only 11% of the programs are rated effective. 26% are moderately effective. The current allocations of financial aid doesn't even go to institutions with the neediest students - U.S. Dept of Education words - not mine.

Pell Grants - prone to abuse. Students cheat and lie to get pell grants.

Now I will say this - I am not against financial aid for educations. But I believe it should be done at the state level. By allowing the bureaucracy of the U.S. dept of education control this money you end up getting waste and unfunded mandates.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15823/US_Education_Policy_at_a_Crossroads_Stop_the_Waste_or_Waste_More.html

If you can suggest a workable alternative and justify the dismissal of the ED without resorting to merely calling it unconstitutional, please do so.

Why? It is unconstitutional. You can jump up and down all you want, but until you show me where in the constitution where the government is authorized to legislate education. Until it is a mute point.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

I'm sure that if the ED or any of the other existing Cabinet offices were actually unconstitutional, a case would have made it to the Supreme Court on the matter.

Illogical argument. We already know that the Department of Education and their unfunded mandates is Unconstitutional. Therefore by your logic they should have been struck down, but they haven't - so therefore we can conclude that it is not "sure" thing that the courts would actually do their job.

[SpanglerFan316]

If you can suggest a workable alternative and justify the dismissal of the ED without resorting to merely calling it unconstitutional, please do so.

Why? It is unconstitutional. You can jump up and down all you want, but until you show me where in the constitution where the government is authorized to legislate education. Until it is a mute point.

The notion of "being unconstitutional" isn't in the constitution. "Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional." http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html

The decision of "constitutionality" is up to the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to "show (you) where in the constitution where the government is authorized to legislate education" since this does not represent the legal standard in the USA.

[SB Shock]

If you can suggest a workable alternative and justify the dismissal of the ED without resorting to merely calling it unconstitutional, please do so.

Why? It is unconstitutional. You can jump up and down all you want, but until you show me where in the constitution where the government is authorized to legislate education. Until it is a mute point.

The notion of "being unconstitutional" isn't in the constitution. "Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional." http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html

The decision of "constitutionality" is up to the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to "show (you) where in the constitution where the government is authorized to legislate education" since this does not represent the legal standard in the USA.

The constitution applies to the federal government. Its sole goal is define what the government can do. The U.S. Government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it by the Constitution.

Founders even gave us the 10th amendment so it would be clear:

10th Amendment - "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."

The States should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government"

[SpanglerFan316]

Independent of your opinions, the legal system in the USA acts according to its own rules. Lots of people rant about this or that but these rants have no effect on the legal standards or processes in the USA.

I think no child left behind is a terrible law; it is hurting Kansas kids because they are being "taught to the test." However my opinion does not change the legal facts.

[n8]

You're making the mistake of quoting Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the staunchest opponents of the inclusion of the Interstate Commerce and Elastic Clauses of the constitution. These were written into the constitution so that it could be adapted to fit the needs of future generations. They give the federal government Implied Powers beyond those Enumerated in its articles. Such a thing would not exist if they Framers had intended the Constitution to be used as the exact letter of the law.

BTW, that is called being a "legislative court". That is unconstitutional.

Constitutionality is not explicitly covered in the constitution. When the Marbury v. Madison decision was made, it became the first example of United States case law. Your statement above presents a paradox because an unconstitutional law, and the entire concept of judicial review, would not exist without a "legislative court."