- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,338
- Reaction score
- 412
- Location
- West Coast USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Depends on how much federal government money the university receives. If they receive even one dollar from the federal government like so many universities do. Then I do not see why the federal government should have a say in what they do. How many universities are completely funded by private donors? Those creepy ultra christian ones where everybody dresses in 1984 uniforms?
They receive taxpayer money in violation of the Constitution.
The government may as well insist the socialist professors demanding the government take over everything receive government pay scale, right? Those same perfessers want the goverment to violate the Constitution for everything else, so why not?
Let's put it this way...the government taking over won't be able to decrease the quality of education those students are getting.
I went with the bear option as it was closest for me. But I wasn't scared, and I found $20.
Can you link me to the part of the Constitution that is being violated.
Cookie Cutter Universities would be a horrible thing.
Article 1, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment, to name two places. Taken together, they strictly forbid federal funding of eduation.
Don't try to pretend that phrase "general welfare" means "blank check". It don't. Article 1 Section 8 detail what SPECIFIC powers the Congress has to promote the "general welfare". It does not list "education of the masses" as an option.
The Tenth Amendment states that what isn't specifically granted to the Congress is reserved to the States. There's no exception listed in that amendment.
President Jefferson in one of his State of the Union messages stated that since his opinion was that the interests of the nation would be best served if the government financed some form of minimum public education, it would be nice if the Congress would pass an Amendment to the Constitution permitting Congress to appropriate those funds for that purpose.
Also, both Madison and Hamilton agree on one point, they who disagreed on many points....the purpose of specifically defining the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8 was to prevent the Congress from assuming other powers, and that it makes absolutely no sense to claim that any clause grants Congress unlimited power that would undermine and eliminate the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article 1, Section 8.
If the government wasn't interfering in the college financing scams, college wouldn't be so expensive
Here's an idea....make the kids going to college, and their families, accept the fact that it's their education (or their kids) and that it's therefore their RESPONSIBILITY to finance that education and to choose a major that's both productive and profitable.
It's not the duty of the taxpayer who didn't spawn the kid to pay for the stranger's education. He's got his own life to live, let him live it his own way...without burdening him with a busload of miscellaneous crap that he had no part in.
As was noted in Caddy Shack, it's fine for the young lad to aspire to his highest abilities....but if he can't afford to reach them, well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.
Then again...before the government got to interfering in college finances....students could figure out a way to work their way through college. And, well, let's face it, if they're not willing to work for it, why the hell should the government be wasting someone else's tax dollars on them?
No...college today isn't about learning useful skills. It's not about becoming productive members of society. Be for real. The only reason kids go to college is Spring Break.
This has been argued to death in about 50 other threads on here. Feel free to search for those if you want a more detailed response, but for now, I'll just say that Hamilton's view was endorsed by the SC in US v. Butler, and there's no going back.
Link?
Nobody claimed that the power was unlimited, that's a strawman.
There's some truth to this.
FWIW, the taxpayer isn't doing much to finance most educations. At most, they're subsidizing stafford loans to the tune of a few percent. I doubt that without that, kids would drop out or choose different majors.
But you have no problem with the states imposing school taxes to pay for state-run public schools?
I have to give you props for citing Caddyshack.
Students back in the day could "figure it out" because their total educational debt was probably $10k, not $200k.
For some.
Yeah, the USSC has never made a mistake, not once in it's history.
There are currently NO limits on congressional action.
That "strawman" has a chainsaw and is chasing you down the road. Ain't no Ray Bolger in that suit, it's real.
Yeah, no one uses Pell Grants. No one takes up the burden of paying back those loans when the student refuses to. It's just free money, is all.
Not relevant to the discussion of what's constitutional or not.
Read the thread title.
Did I say they didn't?
Oh, so you're just trolling. Great.
Yes there are.
Considering that student loans are not dischargable in bankruptcy, there's not much risk involved.
Oh my bad, I didn't know you were so concerned with staying on topic, what with your rant about KIDS TODAY ALWAYS PLAYING THE VIDDYA GAMES AND WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN LOW AND JUST PARTYING WHAT A WORTHLESS GENERATION RAHHHHHH.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?