Texas is still at it

Then it would be the result of a Democratic process. Isn't that how Democracy is supposed to work?

 

They used to mean Readin, Ritin and Rithmatic (Texas spelling).

.

 

No other state voted on this issue that will be imposed on their children.

.

 

That's more like it, and that's not exactly what appears to be emphasized any longer.

 

I might argue with you about how to fix it, but I won't disagree that our educational system is broken.

I think the downfall began with the "New Math," that just didn't add up.

.

 

Likely, but I have to agree with you on the "New Math".

 

Each State has a Constitutional right to exercise their sovereignty and take control of their states school systems, including which books and subject material will be used in their own schools. And the parents too, should have a much greater role in making those decisions.

 

Each state has a right to make it's own legal system too but if Texas also made public intoxication punishable by 5 years in prison, that wouldn't be right either.

 

Suppose the Federal government made public intoxication punishable by 5 years in prison, would that be right?
Your attitude appears to be that ONLY the Federal government can make rational decisions.

Past bed time for septuagenarians here.

Before I call it a night, when the Federal government makes a bad law, it affects everyone. When a State makes a bad law, you can always move to another State. This is an area where State sovereignty over the Federal government provides us with a form of freedom that a strong central government can easily usurp.

 

Um, I haven't brought up the feds at all and that's a strawman argument, never have I said the feds should be in control of education. On the flip side your attitude seems to be whatever Texas puts into its history books is fine because damnit, state's rights.

 

And those who don't like the new health care law can move to another country!

Historically, the states have been the ones stomping on freedoms.

.

 

I don't see anyone saying that about the feds. I would prefer a weak central government, but the thing about power vaccums is that they create..... power. If no ones dicking around the states, they decide to dick around the countys, and so fourth and so on.

The problem with the state board of education thing is that most people wouldn't fathom they can choose to just..... lie.....

There's a reason that things like education are left to states. First, the country is much too divided to do it federally, but also, it's harder to create a federal backlash because of how hard it is to get into a federal office. This stupidity won't last long, it's not a conservative or liberal thing, both groups hate them, it's a fundie nutjob thing. They won't be doing that shit long, from what I can see. If it where a federal change, it would be much harder to fix.

But about "states rights".... please, find me that phrase in the constitution, then we'll talk.

Rights, as the term is used legally, applies to an individual, not a political entity. States do not, and can not have rights, they have reserved powers, which are just what they sound like: things the feds DON'T regulate, so the states CAN. No rights. At all. Ever.

While I just used it for the opposite argument, these "states rights" nutjobs are making a perfect argument to TAKE AWAY these imaginary rights. fools.

 

Well, to play devil's advocate, the tenth amendment says:

State's rights refers normally to political rights, over who has the ability to make laws in a certain area.

 

And take their money with them, or demand their state pass a law exempting them from what they feel is an unconstitutional federal law.

That makes it acceptable for the Federal government to do the same? One purpose of the Federal government is to assure that states do not oppress their citizens.

 

Like it or not, the Feds are involved, and very deeply in the school system. The parents should have greatest control over their local school systems, and a minimum set of standards should exist that ALL schools should meet. I don't really think Texas or any other state would go as far overboard as the Federal government in rewriting history, and if history is to be taught correctly, it is best to go to the sources, books written in or near the time period of the history that is being studied. Go to the library. Putting emphasis on philosophical teaching is indoctrination, especially when you start grading on what you wish to be accepted.

 

Are we doing a little re-interpreting here? The 10th Amendment says exactly what it says. Rights begin with the individuals, who are "free" to give the state responsibility for maintaining some of their rights, and the states can "allow" the Federal government to take responsibility for maintaining some of the rights they would be more capable of maintaining. The rights the constitution speaks of are natural rights, rights that you would have if you lived alone on an island, and rights which you should retain should others arrive on that island.

 

Quite right, the tenth amendment reserves powers to the states, creating the "reserved powers" I was speaking of. I do realize it's just semantics, but there's no reason not to say reserved powers, other than to muddy the waters and make it sound as though states have more "right" than they do with the proper term.... if the framers felt that states should have "rights", I'm sure they would have written it that way.

 

"if the framers felt the states should have 'rights'"?
I think the framers wrote the Constitution not as a means of defining the Federal government to be the source of rights, but instead as the source of protection of rights, with the individual paramount.
The 10th Amendment clearly states that "The powers not delegated (transfered to) to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited (forbidden) by it to the States, are reserved (set aside) to the States respectively, (individually) or to the people.
The Constitution of the U.S., or any country for that matter should be a basis of law, not something to be manipulated through reinterpretation to achieve the desired results. It is a living document ONLY through the amendment process, in one of two ways, both of which require ratification by 3/4 of the States, not just a simple majority. Perhaps Lincoln understood this when he said "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" in his Gettysburg address.
With so many forms of Socialist governments around the world, why do we not see emigrants flocking to them instead of the U.S., a terrible capitalistic country?

 

That's one of the most convoluted posts I've ever read. What the fuck is your POINT?

Yes, the US has a great government, or at least the document needed to back it up, though the current people are batshit crazy. And we have reserved powers, not rights..... pretty much all there is to that. "right" implies the sweeping authority to govern ones self that an individual has, "reserved" implies that it's limited, which it should be.

If you're going to argue for "states rights", you can't then say "oh, well the framers didn't give a shit about the states". Either you are arguing on the basis of the constitution, or you're not.

Fact is, states don't have rights, they have limited powers. There's quite a difference.

You have the RIGHT to an attorney at law. The state has the POWER to prosecute you. Quite different.

 

Where did I say the States have "rights"? Rights belong to the people, and the Federal government is tasked with the protection of those rights, not creating new rights which would mean they could then also take rights away.