Former President Trump Thread

Bubble181

Bubble181

Eriol said:
OK I get the idea how that could turn out bad in some states, but that's that state's problem.
Click to expand...
Well, no, it's the problem of people with children with disabilities who live in that state. Most won't care.

Admittedly, I can look at it from a European point of view, and say "well, yeah, France doesn't get to decide how Germany takes care of its children with disabilities". Likewise, I can understand why Texans might not want Californians to butt in. Sadly, this will result in a lot of states just saying "screw 'm". As a first world country, I can see why you'd want federal minimum criteria that have to be met. But where that line is drawn is very much a political issue.
 
Dei

Dei

Eriol said:
OK I get the idea how that could turn out bad in some states, but that's that state's problem. That's the whole idea of not just having a federal state which mandates everything, and leaving it up to each on how to implement... well, a LOT of things. If a state does just about anything to its own citizens, it's not up to the neighboring state to impose their will upon the neighbor. That's why you don't all live in one state.

You have problems with that concept in general, or that it's applied to Education, or what?
Click to expand...
There is literally already a federal law that mandates special education standards, because it was so inconsistent from state to state. There's currently a case at the Supreme Court about what minimum standards should actually be. There is a time and place for states rights, but people should never have to pick and choose where they live within the same country based on whether or not their child will be treated with dignity.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Dei said:
There is a time and place for states rights,
Click to expand...
Ya, that's the Enumerated Powers in your constitution. (psst: I didn't see Education listed there)
Dei said:
but people should never have to pick and choose where they live within the same country based on whether or not their child will be treated with dignity.
Click to expand...
"... but people should never have to pick and choose where they live within the same country based on"... ANYTHING THEY WANT EVER that another state supports more than where I live. That point can be applied to virtually any argument when talking about this. That was the point of limiting it in your constitution in the first place!
Bubble181 said:
Admittedly, I can look at it from a European point of view, and say "well, yeah, France doesn't get to decide how Germany takes care of its children with disabilities". Likewise, I can understand why Texans might not want Californians to butt in.
Click to expand...
And that's it. Again, STOP there. A LOT of the USA's system was set up to be exactly like this. The feds were supposed to deal with things ONLY THEY could deal with (like mutual defense/war) and to stay out of how the rest of a state was run. Then some "enterprising" politicians figured out they could play states against each other, and bribe people with their own money, and especially from other states. And then you have what they're dealing with down there right now.

That people want to go back to a more local model is not a negative by definition. Dei, if you're saying "I'm going to get screwed because the politicians where I am don't support what I want, but some politicians ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY do, then that seems like you have two options: 1. GET the locals to care about your issue, or 2. MOVE! In my opinion it is not a reason to start expanding federal power until you get what you want from elsewhere.

That's my opinion on how things should work. Obviously you disagree. But just dropping "local governance = bad things happen" I'm not going to go with you on without more explanation.
 
Dei

Dei

So you are saying that the federal law passed for disabled children is NOT a civil rights issue? That it's fine for public schools to discriminate against children based on their disabilities? Should public schools be allowed to deny children access because of said disabilities? Because lets start there. That was a thing that was happening before IDEA.

Public schools receive federal funding, and therefore should not be claiming states rights.
 
Last edited:
Tress

Tress

Is there a realistic solution that involves having your state improve it's own standards when educating students with disabilities? Gathering support, letter writing campaigns, etc.?
 
Eriol

Eriol

Dei said:
So you are saying that the federal law passed for disabled children is NOT a civil rights issue? That it's fine for public schools to discriminate against children based on their disabilities? Should public schools be allowed to deny children access because of said disabilities? Because lets start there. That was a thing that was happening before IDEA.
Click to expand...
That's not the problem I was pointing out per-se...
Dei said:
Public schools receive federal funding, and therefore should not be claiming states rights.
Click to expand...
THAT is the problem. Federal governments (this is a problem in Canada too) should be constitutionally barred from providing funding of any kind to anything which is supposed to be exclusively provincial (or state in your case) jurisdiction. The money is the power. They're just doing an end-run around on what's supposed to be limitations on their powers.
 
Dei

Dei

You can say that's not a problem you were pointing out, but it really is a question of whether or not it's a civil rights issue. Like I said, there has been a federal law in place since 1990 guaranteeing a "Free and appropriate education" for students with disabilities, because there were so many cases of these students having no means to be educated if their parents could not afford private school, or if they were allowed at school they were shunted off into a corner somewhere and didn't learn.

The argument isn't about whether federal government should have a say in public schools in this case. It's about whether or not access to schools for disabled children is a civil rights issue, and if the decision to allow equal access should be left to the states.
 
Eriol

Eriol

I don't know what to say Dei. While I may agree with you that such a standard should exist, I'm not sure I agree with you that it justifies going to a federal level. Your "right" to many things can be mandated federally, but how should it be enforced and/or provided without money coming from the federal government? And to what range of things should that even be able to be determined federally? And what/how should penalties happen, again, without having it about wealth transfer?

It's not an EASY question, but I would say that anything that begins with "let's let the feds determine the standards, and then pay for PART of it" is a recipe for the feds to then pay a drop, but dictate everything, which gets messy FAST. Just see Health Care in Canada for a good example of that. Well, it's better than your system, but that's not hard, and doesn't make it not a disaster.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Eriol said:
The money is the power. They're just doing an end-run around on what's supposed to be limitations on their powers.
Click to expand...
Well that's actually an uncomfortable part of what they're doing these days, it seems. Whether it's FCC regulations, mineral rights, the 2nd amendment, education, or even just voting to ignore how much it will cost to repeal the ACA, it's long been a "tradition" that if you can't get the law to outright do something, then maybe you can at least get it to ignore or defund not doing it.

--Patrick
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Eriol said:
Ya, that's the Enumerated Powers in your constitution. (psst: I didn't see Education listed there)
Click to expand...
Oh wait...

"Promote the general Welfare" is in there.

And then there's Article 8, section 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."

Yes, it's for copyrights, but tie that with section 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."

The US Federal Government is supposed to promote science and art by using its laws to do what is "necessary and proper" to have them executed properly.

Education is considered to be part of this. Unless, of course, you're a Trump supporter...
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
jwhouk said:
Oh wait...

"Promote the general Welfare" is in there.

And then there's Article 8, section 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."

Yes, it's for copyrights, but tie that with section 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."

The US Federal Government is supposed to promote science and art by using its laws to do what is "necessary and proper" to have them executed properly.

Education is considered to be part of this. Unless, of course, you're a Trump supporter...
Click to expand...
That's a reeeeeeeallly loose and stretched interpretation of those clauses.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Education is inherently a civil rights issue. The ability for any group to become educated is make or break when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The US has a pretty shitty history of trying to keep minorities from being educated, (there are good sized towns in Texas that still had de facto segregation in their schools until just a few years ago, and for all I know some still do).

"Oh, you have a disabled child, just pick up and move to another state if you want them educated" doesn't fly with me. Would it be okay to say "Oh, you're black and your kids aren't getting a good education, just pick up and move to a state where they'll get better treatment"?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
I think part of the theory is, state and local politicians are generally considered more representative than those on the national level because they have closer contact with their constituents and (usually) are more easily replaced. It would be inefficient and counterproductive for a federal congressional subcommittee to be directly in charge of a police department, instead of a locally elected/appointed Chief/Commissioner, for example. The same argument might be made in educational concerns.

The real reason so much federal involvement is usually part of the equation is, as in all things, the money.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Of course, you're forgetting about "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."
 
Dei

Dei

GasBandit said:
Well, that's what Obama did, too...

But they called it "Quantitative Easing." So that it didn't sound like "we just added some zeroes to the end of our balance."
Click to expand...
Though at the same time, I just can't wait for a federal budget from the Republicans that isn't cock blocked. :| I'm sure it will be fine since Republicans are so fiscally responsible.

:rofl:

(Yes, that goes for both parties)
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dei said:
Though at the same time, I just can't wait for a federal budget from the Republicans that isn't cock blocked. :| I'm sure it will be fine since Republicans are so fiscally responsible.

:rofl:

(Yes, that goes for both parties)
Click to expand...
Yeah. I stopped checking some years ago, but last I looked, we hadn't had an actual BUDGET budget (as in not an emergency funding measure/continuing resolution or whatever) passed since 2006.
 
Frank

Frank

So Trump's inauguration concert brought in between 10-20000 people. Just as a comparison, Obama's was 400000.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
So, it just occurred to me, given that anything with a pulse that can be propped up against a podium is almost guaranteed to win against Trump in 2020... who do you think the DNC will rig their primary for? Hillary again maybe? :awesome:
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I wish I had off from work tomorrow. Trump may be drawing a small number, but there's enough out-of-towners to go around.

Ear buds in = I don't want to talk to you. The only difference between this and the usual bus crazies is the red hats.
 
Dei

Dei

I'm thinking Bernie or Biden, but there's still a chance it could be Warren. Also a chance of a random outspoken celebrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top