|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/schools_constitutionQuote:
Schools to Teach Constitution on Sept. 17
WASHINGTON - The Constitution long has ensured that Congress can't tell schools what to teach. But that's no longer the case for at least one topic — the Constitution itself.
The Education Department outlined Tuesday how it plans to enforce a little-known provision that Congress passed in 2004: Every school and college that receives federal money must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the day the document was adopted in 1787.
Schools can determine what kind of educational program they want, but they must hold one every year on the now-named "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day." And if Sept. 17 falls on a weekend or holiday, schools must schedule a program immediately before or after that date.
Historically, the federal government has avoided dictating what or when anything must be taught because those powers rest with the states under the 10th Amendment. The Education Department's Web site even underlines that point, saying matters such as the development of curricula and the setting of course requirements fall outside federal authority.
But Congress stepped in when it came to the nation's foundational document, thanks to Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), the West Virginia Democrat who keeps a copy of the Constitution in his pocket. Byrd inserted the Constitution lesson mandate into a massive spending bill in 2004, frustrated by what he called a huge ignorance on the part of many Americans about history.
It so happened that the Education Department's new guidelines emerged just as Byrd and the Senate, engaged in a fight over judicial filibusters, debated the Constitution's checks and balances.
Neither the department nor Congress has required a specific curriculum or a particular interpretation of the Constitution, Byrd said in an interview Monday.
"I hope that schools will develop many different, creative ways to enable students to learn about one of our country's most important historic documents," he said. "The Constitution protects their freedoms and will impact all facets of their lives."
National surveys and test scores in recent years have shown many students don't know much about history. A study of high school attitudes this year revealed most students take for granted the First Amendment to the Constitution. More than one in three students said the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, such as freedom of religion, speech and the press.
Yet some education groups say Congress has no business dictating what schools and universities must do on a certain day.
In middle school or high school, for example, schools may have to interrupt lesson plans, said Dan Fuller, director of federal programs for the National School Boards Association.
"You may have to leap from the Civil War or Vietnam to the Constitution," Fuller said. "Local schools cover the Constitution, and they've been doing it for a long time. We don't need the federal micromanagement. Congress has been acting more like a school board."
In higher education, "It's the sort of thing that raises the question, 'If this, what's next?'" said Becky Timmons, senior director for government relations at the American Council on Education, the leading lobbying group for colleges and universities.
"If the justification is that the Constitution is so central to our democracy, couldn't somebody else come along and say, 'Well, I think the history of American architecture is quite important,'" she said. "I don't think most folks on campus perceive this to be an enormous slippery slope, but it's never good when the government tells them what to teach."
Timmons added, however, she was pleased that the Education Department seemed to favor an honor system of compliance rather than a "nightmarish" plan of site visits or required documentation. She said colleges would likely come up with many ways to satisfy the law, from holding a campus assembly on the Constitution to distributing information in every class.
Department spokeswoman Susan Aspey said "there are enforcement options" that may apply but said it is too early to speculate on what happens if schools don't follow the law.
"We expect institutions to comply," Aspey said. The department's guidelines direct schools to Web sites for information, including the one run by the National Archives.
The federal law championed by Byrd also affects all federal agencies. They will have to train new employees about the Constitution during orientation and train all employees about the document every Sept. 17. The Office of Personnel Management is expected to post guidelines in those areas soon.
Thoughts?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
|
|
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236 |
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since public schools in Texas are already teaching the whole "Character counts" morality stuff, at least we get to do something educational and HISTORICALLY related for once.
It kinda sucks you can only teach on it for a day though. An indepth study over a course of a few weeks would impact more than a brief survey for fifty minutes one class period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
I think mandating a single day would be an easier sell than mandating a few weeks. Plus, it would be less intrusive into whatever else teachers need to cover in class.
As for the issue itself, I'm kinda torn about this one.
On one hand, students need to be taught the basic law of the land and what exactly those laws mean and how they affect our lives and the way our government works. This is something they ought to know as citizens.
On the other hand, I don't know if I like the idea of the government saying "this has to be taught in schools." In this particular case, I don't have a problem. But I'm wondering about the precedent it could set for other topics that could be declared mandatory to be taught at schools.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
|
|
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236 |
Dk the government already does that! At least state government does. We have the Teks in texas (texas essential knowledge and skills) that we have to cover for every grade level (divided up by subject matter) in order for the kids to do well on their state test. If the government wants it covered they but it in the Taks (texas assessment of knowledge and skills) that the kid takes at the end of every year which determines if they pass up to the next grade level (thanks alot No Child Left Behind which made sure every state in the US has to do the same thing!).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
I'm, at heart, a state's rights kinda guy. Yes, the constitution is very important and needs to be taught, but I don't think it's the federal government's job to tell schools when to do it. States should be in charge of their own educational systems.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
States should be in charge of their own educational systems.
Then states should happily eschew federal aid for their educational systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
States should be in charge of their own educational systems.
Then states should happily eschew federal aid for their educational systems.
I think that whenever federal monies are involved, you kinda open the door for some sort of federal involvement. IIRC for a while, Louisiana (I think that was the state) refused to raise the legal age of drinking to 21 while ever other state raised it. The feds withdrew federal monies from the state (I forget exactly which of La.'s state departments got hit by this), but once federal funding was pulled La. sought to raise the drinking age in order to get the money back.
Just the way things work.
 Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
I think mandating a single day would be an easier sell than mandating a few weeks. Plus, it would be less intrusive into whatever else teachers need to cover in class.
As for the issue itself, I'm kinda torn about this one.
On one hand, students need to be taught the basic law of the land and what exactly those laws mean and how they affect our lives and the way our government works. This is something they ought to know as citizens.
On the other hand, I don't know if I like the idea of the government saying "this has to be taught in schools." In this particular case, I don't have a problem. But I'm wondering about the precedent it could set for other topics that could be declared mandatory to be taught at schools.
Yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
States should be in charge of their own educational systems.
Then states should happily eschew federal aid for their educational systems.
And the federal government should happily eschew collection of the tax money that they allocate for educational spending.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
harleykwin said:
I think that whenever federal monies are involved, you kinda open the door for some sort of federal involvement. IIRC for a while, Louisiana (I think that was the state) refused to raise the legal age of drinking to 21 while ever other state raised it. The feds withdrew federal monies from the state (I forget exactly which of La.'s state departments got hit by this), but once federal funding was pulled La. sought to raise the drinking age in order to get the money back.
Just the way things work.
A couple, actually. First it was for highway maintenance. And anyone who has drove on LA highways knows that they really didn't give a shit about that since the sale of alcohol to the 18-20 demographic made them more money than the federal aid brought in. I think a few of their federal aid programs took a hit before the state relented.
Once again, I think the federal government was in the wrong and shouldn't have the ability to bully a state in such a way.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Unfortunately, Doctor, as Harley noted, if a state wants federal money for a particular program, the state has to accept the strings attached with same. That's been the way it is for nearly every federal program since the beginning of the nation.
It's like any other contract. If Party A wants money from Party B, Party A has to agree to B's terms.
The real answer is, of course, for each state to completely fund and completely manage its own educational system (subject, of course, to the US Constitution's guaranteed rights, etc.). This would allow each state to come up with its own state specific solutions for whatever educational issues ails it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
Dk the government already does that! At least state government does. We have the Teks in texas (texas essential knowledge and skills) that we have to cover for every grade level (divided up by subject matter) in order for the kids to do well on their state test. If the government wants it covered they but it in the Taks (texas assessment of knowledge and skills) that the kid takes at the end of every year which determines if they pass up to the next grade level (thanks alot No Child Left Behind which made sure every state in the US has to do the same thing!).
Not quite the same thing as ordering that "this specific topic must be taught on this day."
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Unfortunately, Doctor, as Harley noted, if a state wants federal money for a particular program, the state has to accept the strings attached with same. That's been the way it is for nearly every federal program since the beginning of the nation.
It's like any other contract. If Party A wants money from Party B, Party A has to agree to B's terms.
The real answer is, of course, for each state to completely fund and completely manage its own educational system (subject, of course, to the US Constitution's guaranteed rights, etc.). This would allow each state to come up with its own state specific solutions for whatever educational issues ails it.
I understand a "This money goes towards higher education," or "This money should be allocated to maintaining the interstate system within your state." But should the federal government have the power to mandate that a specific subject be taught on a specific day?
The bank will give me money to buy a home or a car. Should the bank mandate exactly which home or car I buy? What neighborhood it's in? What gas mileage it gets? What color the paint is?
Like I've said, I'm old school in that I believe in state's rights and a smaller federal government. I understand having provisions on federal aid to states, though. I just don't think that the federal government should be able to push a certain way of thought on a state body by using this money. In the LA example, the fed cut several aid packages to force the raising of the drinking age in the state from 18 to 21. Why would the amount given to education in that state have anything to do with the when legally recognized adult can buy a six pack?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
The bank will give me money to buy a home or a car. Should the bank mandate exactly which home or car I buy? What neighborhood it's in? What gas mileage it gets? What color the paint is?
The difference is, the bank is giving you a private loan that you eventually have to pay back with interest or risk losing whatever collateral you used to obtain the loan in the first place. The funds loaned to you are not public funds.
Quote:
Like I've said, I'm old school in that I believe in state's rights and a smaller federal government. I understand having provisions on federal aid to states, though. I just don't think that the federal government should be able to push a certain way of thought on a state body by using this money. In the LA example, the fed cut several aid packages to force the raising of the drinking age in the state from 18 to 21. Why would the amount given to education in that state have anything to do with the when legally recognized adult can buy a six pack?
Wait, I thought you said that the monies involved affected the Highways? That rings a bell for me. The fed $ given to the Department of Highways was related to the drinking age because the number of drunk drivers between the ages of 18-20 was incredibly high - much more so for that age range than any other. At least, this was the reason I remember being given for the feds to w/hold federal funds from La's Hwy Dept.
As for the amount given to education (I would first assume that we are talking about public education) I would think that the drunk driving rates of 18-20 y.o.s would be the reason given, yet again, as public education would encompass state universities who - despite protestations to the contrary - know that their undergraduates drink. A lot.
Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Looking over this, something doesn't make sense: the requirement for colleges to do this. Would every professor in every discipline be required to do this, meaning that every student attending classes on that day would have to learn about the Constitution? Would only professors teaching appropriate fields be responsible?
Or would there be special Constitution lectures or assemblies that students could choose to go to if they wished?
Last edited by Darknight613; 2005-05-25 7:39 PM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
The bank will give me money to buy a home or a car. Should the bank mandate exactly which home or car I buy? What neighborhood it's in? What gas mileage it gets? What color the paint is?
The difference is, the bank is giving you a private loan that you eventually have to pay back with interest or risk losing whatever collateral you used to obtain the loan in the first place. The funds loaned to you are not public funds.
That's because a bank using the interest it charges on loans to pay back the money the people whose money they borrowed against to loan it in the first place (in other words, people like you and I who put our savings in the bank). The federal government is taking money it took from the citizens to give it back to the same citizens.
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Wait, I thought you said that the monies involved affected the Highways? That rings a bell for me. The fed $ given to the Department of Highways was related to the drinking age because the number of drunk drivers between the ages of 18-20 was incredibly high - much more so for that age range than any other. At least, this was the reason I remember being given for the feds to w/hold federal funds from La's Hwy Dept.
And LA refused those funds and instead took the extra revenue from the sale of liquor to 18-20 year olds.
Quote:
harleykwin said:
As for the amount given to education (I would first assume that we are talking about public education) I would think that the drunk driving rates of 18-20 y.o.s would be the reason given, yet again, as public education would encompass state universities who - despite protestations to the contrary - know that their undergraduates drink. A lot.
I believe LA experienced an across the board cut in federal funding until they relented. Why should federal funding for elementary cafeteria programs be cut to raise the drinking age? Why should funds for elderly care programs suffer because the state won't raise the legal drinking age? The federal government should not be allowed the ability to force an agenda that has nothing to do with equal protection of US citizens or their legally granted rights on the state governments.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
The bank will give me money to buy a home or a car. Should the bank mandate exactly which home or car I buy? What neighborhood it's in? What gas mileage it gets? What color the paint is?
As noted by Harley, the bank is giving you a loan, which you pay back. The federal money is more akin to paying you for a service, meaning that the payor gets to define what is an acceptable level of service.
Furthermore, banks do, in fact, dictate much of what you can do with your money even under a loan.
Take a look at your mortgage documents sometime and you'll see that the bank does, in fact, mandate which home you buy and in which neighborhood (through the pre-lending appraisal process). It also probably mandates that you buy a particular type or level of homeowner's insurance, whether or not you can put a business in your home, that you'll keep the house in good repair, etc.
I'm with you on states' rights. However, states have to realize that, if they accept federal money, they have to accept the strings that go with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
I began realizing it was a bad analogy a while back since you already pick out the car and/or house before applying for a loan. But I'm trying to write in between stuff here at work, so my train of thought comes and goes.
Here's a better example. The federal government does fund the Welfare system. Food stamps are given out so that people can buy food for their families. This only applies for food. Non-food or alcoholic items cannot be purchased with food stamps. But that's as far as it goes. The program does not regulate which foods may be purchased. Recepients are not forced to use a certain percentage of their Welfare to buy fruits, nor are they required to buy the least expensive items. If someone with food stamps wants to use it all to purchase the most expensive brand of frozen pizzas and ice cream, they can. There is nothing stopping them.
Why would the government be so concerned to mandate a single day's ciriculum and not more closely regulate the Welfare state?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
However, as you, yourself, just noted, there are strings attached to that welfare check or those food stamps.
In addition to telling you what you can or cannot buy with food stamps, the federal government can also, as a condition of public assistance, tell you to go back to school, to get a job, to enroll a drug treatment program, etc., etc.
That was a major component of welfare reform, in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
G-man's right. Back in 1996 TANiF was implimented to convert welfare reform into a work based program. In fact if NYS, and really any state, wants to continue to get federal funding for "workfare" (as its sometimes called) there are quotas that each state must meet - i.e., percentages of number of people working in a household; hours spent in school by the recipient, etc. If those quotas (really eligibility requirements that must be met by each individual applicant for welfare) are not met by the state, federal funding can be pulled. Food stamps, public assistance, etc. are not just freely given - the federal govenment dictates to the states what regulations must be implimented in order to get federal funding. The states can interpret/taylor the federal regs accordingly.
Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
The bank will give me money to buy a home or a car. Should the bank mandate exactly which home or car I buy? What neighborhood it's in? What gas mileage it gets? What color the paint is?
The difference is, the bank is giving you a private loan that you eventually have to pay back with interest or risk losing whatever collateral you used to obtain the loan in the first place. The funds loaned to you are not public funds.
That's because a bank using the interest it charges on loans to pay back the money the people whose money they borrowed against to loan it in the first place (in other words, people like you and I who put our savings in the bank). The federal government is taking money it took from the citizens to give it back to the same citizens.
Yes, but when people open an account with a bank, they know that this is how banks work - and more importantly, the funds used are still private funds. If a person doesn't like how the bank does business, they can withdraw
their private monies from the bank for the very reason that its their private money.
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Wait, I thought you said that the monies involved affected the Highways? That rings a bell for me. The fed $ given to the Department of Highways was related to the drinking age because the number of drunk drivers between the ages of 18-20 was incredibly high - much more so for that age range than any other. At least, this was the reason I remember being given for the feds to w/hold federal funds from La's Hwy Dept.
And LA refused those funds and instead took the extra revenue from the sale of liquor to 18-20 year olds.
I don't know the specific reason why, but obviously at some point it was not financially prudent for LA to continue to do this. The amount of federal monies that the state was losing must have outweighed the amount of money it was getting from the revenue of selling liquor to the 18-20 y.o. bracket.
Quote:
harleykwin said:
As for the amount given to education (I would first assume that we are talking about public education) I would think that the drunk driving rates of 18-20 y.o.s would be the reason given, yet again, as public education would encompass state universities who - despite protestations to the contrary - know that their undergraduates drink. A lot.
I believe LA experienced an across the board cut in federal funding until they relented.
Is this true? Honestly, I don't know.
Quote:
Why should federal funding for elementary cafeteria programs be cut to raise the drinking age?
Because when federal monies are given to each state there is an amount allocated for each subject - i.e., NYS gets x amount allocated to education - how the state chooses to divy the amount tagged for education is up to NYS. If the funding is cut because of the drinking age, or whatever the reason, the entire group gets hit.
Quote:
Why should funds for elderly care programs suffer because the state won't raise the legal drinking age?
Did this actually happen?
Quote:
The federal government should not be allowed the ability to force an agenda that has nothing to do with equal protection of US citizens or their legally granted rights on the state governments.
This I agree with. Somehow I ended up arguing a point I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand that this is how it works.
Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
However, as you, yourself, just noted, there are strings attached to that welfare check or those food stamps.
In addition to telling you what you can or cannot buy with food stamps, the federal government can also, as a condition of public assistance, tell you to go back to school, to get a job, to enroll a drug treatment program, etc., etc.
That was a major component of welfare reform, in fact.
But, again, you are missing my whole point. Federal aid all has strings attached. The question is, how many strings should we allow?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
