Monday, June 1, 2009

Bills like no child left behind and the new health care aren't constitutional right

Bills like no child left behind and the new health care aren't constitutional right?
We have a federal government, not unitary, or a confederacy. Thus powers were given to the national government and to the states. Enumerated Powers (National Government): primarily the ability to coin money and create a national defense though there are more. Concurrent Powers (shared by both National and State) Taxation Reserved (State) Police, education, welfare Yet we are allowing the national government to have control of these powers? Its in the 10th amendment that the reserved powers are for the States. These bills are not constitutional right? The national government now mandates in some cases how many police officers will be hired per area, has passed this no child left behind, and now health care... all three of the main state powers and we are allowing the national government to take over them?
Government - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
The Bush/Republican "No Child Left Behind" Act is a complete failure (ask ANY educator). but it was legal (Constitutional). PLEASE do EVERYTHING you can to keep Republicans out of power long enough to clean up all the messes they left behind! (at least 12 years)
2 :
You are starting from YOUR theory of what the Constitution says, and using that theory to conclude that bills which have passed constitutional muster in the Supreme Court are invalid. No Child Left Behind is Constitution because it doesn't force the states to do anything. It merely conditions state receipt of federal aid on certain performance benchmarks. Which is perfectly fine.
3 :
Well, since no decisions have been offered by the Supreme Court regarding No Child, Health Care, etc., as of today they are perfectly Constitutional.
4 :
See: Implied Powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers
5 :
The US Supreme Court would have to make that decision.`
6 :
The Federal Government can, and will do, whatever it pleases.....if you want to change what it does, either run for office yourself, or vote for someone else... it's an elected government...
7 :
Yes, both are PLAINLY unconstitutional. This is why BOTH were Democrat written and had little or no Republican support. Bush signed NCLB and the very Democrats who WROTE it immediately decided it was evil and distanced themselves from it and claimed it was Bush's bill. Democrats like Billy, firewomen, Sophie and Steve do NOT believe The Constitution says what it says. They ACTUALLY believe it says whatever a liberal (ONLY a liberal) Judge says it says, even if that means it simultaneously says different and mutually excluding things for two different cases. Billy's "special" interpretation of NCLB ignores the fact that no lawful power for the needed appropriations exists. They don't see any need for government to obey the law and in fact OBJECT whenever it does. They demand the "might-makes-right" plan: the Feds CAN do it (not legally, I just mean they are physically able) so it's O.K. if they DO.

Read more discussion :