Washington Post Article Calls for Nullification of No Child Left Behind

cross-posted from the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center

The Obama administration’s Department of Education has a plan to offer ‘waivers’ regarding the closing of schools as mandated by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education law. States are unable to meet the requirements, and apprehension is growing that penalties will kick in as goals are not met. The administration is frustrated with the slow pace of legislative reform as debate on reforming NCLB has been derailed by more pressing issues, such as the national debt ceiling and spending reforms.

It is very interesting to note an article which appeared in the Washington Post titled “Why states should refuse Duncan’s NCLB waivers” which reprints a letter from Monty Neill, executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, known as FairTest. In the article, Mr. Neill calls for nullification of NCLB without actually using the word ‘nullification’:

Details

Super Congress A Gift to K Street

by Ron Paul

The Super Congress created by the recent debt ceiling increase deal is a typical example of something nefarious attached to a bigger bill that is rushed through Congress without giving Members ample opportunity to consider the full ramifications. This commission may turn into an early Christmas present for the well-heeled lobbyists of K Street. This is because the commission presents a huge opportunity for lobbying firms to sneak their client’s pet projects and issues into whatever legislation is created by the commission. The fact that automatic cuts to defense are named if the committee deadlocks simply signals to the military industrial complex to bring their A game to the lobbying effort.

One red flag I am constantly aware of in my position as a Congressman is that highly complex and convoluted legislation frequently has dangerous provisions hidden in the fine print. Elaborate legislative packages force lawmakers to take the bad with the good, and often if they refuse, they are accused of voting against the positive provision – never mind the blatant Constitutional violations in the bill, the spending, the waste, and the unchecked expansion of government. I don’t usually have to read too much of a bill like that before encountering something unconstitutional, or simply unwise. Then I have to vote no.

That doesn’t seem to be the case with a majority of legislators, unfortunately. In order to ram through one special interest’s favorable treatment or giveaway, a certain amount of horse-trading is done. The end result is mammoth bills with myriads of unrelated provisions that favor those with the best lobbyists at the expense of everyone else.

Details

The Tea Party Under Attack

The Tea Party movement is under assault and there is a concerted effort to define them as radical outsiders and hell bent on destroying the federal government. The attacks are coming from politicians that believe they know best about the things we need, and will take all the resource necessary to deliver on their grand promises. The Tea Party disagrees.

The founders of this nation were patriots that at the time were being defined in a similar fashion by the British establishment as Washington today is defining the Tea Party. It is amazing how history repeats itself when people fail to study their history. The Tea Party is simply asking the federal government to act within the constitution and live within the means we the people have set for them. There is no terrorism or radicalism in that philosophy. It is a simple request and it will be adhered to one way or the other. The government serves at the will of the people. The Tea Party represents the people.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Details