Of all the things Bush said in his State of The Union speech, one thing stood out as remarkable. No, I'm not talking about his obvious ploy to distance himself politically from the oil industry by calling on research to free us from our dependance on foreign energy sources, which by the way he none too cleverly blamed the American people for. I'm referring instead to one thing he proposed which was actually a good idea, and that is his idea to train more teachers in Math and Science. A good idea, and a vital one. It's not really all that bad,of course-yet! For the time being, it is true that there is qualified teachers in these areas that is at about the world average,cosidering our population and economy. Yet, there is an obvious trend toward growth in, particularly, China and India, in the fields of Math and Science, and it is a growth that threatens to outpace the U.S., which if it continues could leave us at a decided competitive disadvantage with these two nations.
Therefore, Bush's urgings for increased investment in these areas is to be applauded, and taken seriously.
Now, if only somebody would focus as much attention on the need for qualified teachers of history, and I mean real history, not the kind that tries to soothe the world's ruffled feathers by portraying America as the cause of most if not all the worlds current problems, but actual, true, history. In particular, I would love to see a focus on insuring that every student, by the time he or she graduates from high school,has a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the rights entailed in that document-it's history and philosophy, with a special emphasis on the Bill of Rights, though by no means limited to that.
Any chance of that occurring anytime soon? Yeahhhh, right. Politicans just want Americans to be smart enough to compete in the worlds global economy in order to contribute to the tax base. They don't want us to be smart enough to know our rights, and to know when they've crossed the line. In other words, they don't want us to know that, by and large, we should vote all these clowns out of office, in both parties.
6 comments:
Rights entailed in the constitution?
Isn't that, all rights not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government? Unfortunately due to the (American) Civil War the federal Constitution is held as binding the states as it binds the federal government. But that is not the wording in the Constitution: All rights not explicitly granted the federal government shall be reserved for the states and citizens therein.(paraphrase)
Most people don't seem to realize that their state is technically not bound by the bill of rights. The bill of rights was attached to the federal Constitution to prevent the federal government from doing certain things. It was never intended to rule over state legislation.
i.e. States have the power to set up a state church. If you don't like it, move to a different state.
Nope, afraid not. If the First Amendment didn't apply to the States, then neither does the Second. Or the Third. Or the Fourth. Etc., etc. If you catch my drift.
Exactly.
The constitution was written to be guidelines for the federal government, not the states. The founding fathers saw the states as an extension of the people not as an extension of the federal government. Many of the signers of the Constitution insisted on the first amendment as a further curb to and example of what the federal government can and cannot do. Others insisted that it would be wrongly construed.
If the Constitution and Amendments thereof were binding on the states, why do some of the original state constitutions have state churches? They were allowed into the union because the Constitution states that what is not expressly forbade by the constitution regarding the states is left up to the individual states and the first amendment applies only to Congress: "Congress shall make no law..."
I understand what you're saying. But at the same time, the original framers would probably have been adverse to the idea that a future state government might rise to power and do the very things they would not want the federal government to do. They wouldn't want state government officials, for example, to have the power to break into someones home and ransack their property and arrest them without a warrant or without any explanation, and hold them indefinitely without benefit of a trial or legal representation.
There may have been some origianl dissconnect, due to practical matters, in as much as what various states might have been allowed to have in their constitutions. But I don't think a state religion would be considered by even most conservative jurists as in keeping with the original intent of the founders as a whole.
It may well be one of the great ironies that, in due course of time, the situation was turned on its head. Where the constituion was originally meant to protect the states from intrusions by the federal government, in a great many respects over time it came to be that the federal government ended up protecting the rights of the individual citizens of the states from intrusions by their various state govenrnments.
That aspect may have as much to do with the advent of Jacksonian Democracy as anything else. But it's certainly something to ponder.
A federal government has come to power which does exactly what the founders feared a federal government would do.
It charges income tax, to support its sociallization (control of the states and people therein by offers of money) of this nation, which it is not authorized to do under the Constitution.
It spies on its citizens "to protect them from terrorists" (terrorists being these citizens, upon whom they spy).
While there is no constitutional right (stated/implied in the constitution) of privacy, there is a right to attempt conceal one's activities from all, until such a time as a judge or grand jury determine otherwise. Not quite the same as a right to privacy.
Much as the Colonies were setup with certain religious or economic ideals in mind, so should states be setup and run, without federal intervention.
You seem to be referring to the Federal Income Tax. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass, but it's not unconstitutional. Remember, it came about as the result of a constitutional amendment. Seventeenth, I think it was, but I might be wrong about the exact number.
You also seem to be wanting it both ways in your interpretation of the "right to privacy". You either have it or you don't, I don't see much middle ground. If you have a right to conceal your activities until a judge or court says otherwise, that sounds like a pretty strong assurrance of privacy rights to me.
I have a problem also with the Patriot Act, and it's potential for abuse. But wouldn't that be an example of a judge or court deeming such a person has no right to conceal their activities? The idea of not going through the courts, as pertains to recent controversies, is an entirely different matter.
Finally, I don't know about you, but I don't trust state governemnts to do the right thing any more than I do the Feds. They are all politicians, therefore have the potential for corruption. In fact, this may be allthe more true in state and local government, where there may not be the degree of balance of powers and therefore oversight that exists, at least in theory, in the fedeal government. In fact, it is my experience that state and local lawmakers tend to be notoriously corrupt,and more than happy to play to the whims of the crowd-whatever they might happen to be at any given time.
Better be careful what you wish for, friend.
Post a Comment