Separation of Constitution and State?

It seems we have reached a new point of inversion.

Are we at a point where references to the Constitution are now censored by the public education system? The curriculum has long been compromised with Constitutional half-truths, but are we now censoring student’s speeches that reflect on the Constitution? Is it too controversial, or just too obviously true, to allow a valedictorian to point out that the federal government is trampling rights?

According to reports, a North Texas valedictorian’s microphone was recently shut off mid-speech when his speech varied from the submitted script. The speech varied and “…he was talking about getting constitutional rights getting taken away from him.” the microphone was cut off. In fairness to the school, there was a policy in place that microphones would be shut off if the speech went off-script.

However, this trend to micromanage the speech of those that have earned the highest academic position available is problematic. What prompts the school to implement such authoritarian measures of censorship of a valedictorian’s speech? Who’s speech is it anyway?  Why did this valedictorian feel the need to remove references to the Constitution in the draft submitted to the school censors?

Details

Arizona: AIMS Failed And So Will PARCC and Common Core

Benjamin Franklin said, “Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom.” I think that we can all agree that education is paramount to a successful society and that it would behoove us to create a system that promotes and accelerates. However, how do we ensure that our children are best educated?

There is a new program on the block that is getting snapped up by schools around the country called the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). In Arizona the AIMS test has been struck out and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) has taken its place which uses the CCSSI platform. As of right now the teachers have been getting trained of how to teach a CCSSI based classroom. Next Governor Brewer must sign AZ HB2047 to allow the PARCC test be the new standardized test for Arizona. The third phase is for the PARCC test scores to be shared with the federal and other state governments to continue to standardize the test. AZ HB2563 requires the AZ State Board to enforce the PARCC testing. Neither HB2047 or HB2563 have been signed into law but Governor Brewer’s aide Matthew Benson stated, “At the heart of Common Core is the notion of implementing more stringent internationally benchmarked standards. She is 100 percent supportive of the concept.”

If we can encourage our politicians to vote NAY on HB2047 and HB2563, we’ve effectively stopped the Phase II of the implementation of the Common Core.

Debra Goodwin here at TAC has written a good overview of CCSSI and why it is bad in her article called Common Core: An Attack on Freedom and What to Do About it. Columnist Michelle Malkin wrote, “For decades, collectivist agitators in our schools have chipped away at academic excellence in the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. Progressive reformers denounced Western civilization requirements, the Founding Fathers and the Great Books as racist. They attacked traditional grammar classes as irrelevant in modern life. They deemed ability grouping of students (tracking) bad for self-esteem. They replaced time-tested rote techniques and standard algorithms with fuzzy math, inventive spelling and multi-cultural claptrap.”

Details

A Libertarian Case for the Department of Education

Last week the Rooney-Blansten amendment requiring the federal Common Core curriculum to devote equal time to Republican presidents was narrowly defeated in the U.S. Senate, despite a RealClearPolitics poll showing 87.8921% of the public supported the idea.

I’m a libertarian who writes frequently for the Tenth Amendment Center, and years ago I donated to the Cato Institute. But despite these impeccable credentials, I support a yeasty view of the Constitution and believe it politically expedient to pass federal legislation that ensures Republican politicians receive the same favorable treatment as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in any national civics curriculum approved by the federal Department of Education.

Anti-federal supremacists need to refine their priorities, with an eye to keeping moderate Republicans in office. The focus on “federal involvement in education” is wrong-headed and counter-productive, and overlooks the legislatively-mandated benefit (explicitly affirmed in Rooney-Blansten) of having all public schools teach no fewer than 15 positive things each about Richard Nixon, the two Bushes, and even failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Details

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

There has been a growing number of states recently looking to pass laws that nullify overreaching federal intrusions on Second Amendment rights with Alabama being one of the latest states looking to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Alabama Senate Bill 43 is called the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ and it intends to ‘exempt from…

Details

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.

Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme.

Details

VIDEO: A Rousing Defense of the Constitution and Nullification

At a time when the Republican establishment is doing everything they can to alienate their constituents, and nullification measures are getting introduced around the country, it becomes more important than ever to step up and put our best foot forward when presenting our ideas to citizens desperately looking for a way to fight back against unjust federal power. Luckily, we have a shining example to follow in constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall who gave an eloquent defense of ObamaCare nullification at the Florida Senate Select Committee on Monday, December 3rd.

WATCH IT:

“Some claim that [ObamaCare] must be submitted to as law of the land since the Supreme Court made its declaration from on high. This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign states, but a monarchy. The supremacy clause declares the Constitution to be supreme, not the federal government,” Hall said in her stirring repudiation of the bill.

Details

Hungry for Freedom

It is probably fair to say no President, First Lady, or candidate for said office has ever left a campaign event, state dinner or probably any meal in general saying, “Gee, I wish I’d had more to eat.”  Yet none before the Obamas entered 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have claimed the authority to tell us what they want us to eat, while they eat what they want.  Plenty of kids across these 50 States have probably said that with increasing frequency in response to new federal mandates regarding school lunches.

While our First Lady is able to enjoy her favorite pizza, children in a Kansas school have made a video in protest.  Other students have said the portrayal is accurate, with students claiming they are still hungry throughout the rest of the school day.  There is so much wrong with this situation, it almost encompasses all the problems facing the Tenther movement today.

First, the school administrator interviewed said the solution in the past has been to make adjustments to the school lunches when there were complaints, but the new federal “laws” left him with his hands tied.  A word to that administrator personally, RESIGN!   Your primary responsibility is the well being of the students in your school.  You ought to know better than the people in Congress, the White House and the untold numbers of executive agencies trying to appear significant by churning out new rules.  You should even know better than the nine self-proclaimed demigods on the Supreme Court.  Show some spine and make the adjustments without their permission.  You want input on improving school food?  Go to your community first.

Details

Presidential Election 2012: Spitting into the Wind

To those of you who believe the Republican Party will save you from the evil mechanizations of the Democrats…sorry. It ain’t going to happen in November 2012. And that’s even if their poster-boy Mitt Romney steals the show. Why? Well, Missouri Tenth has made it pretty darn clear in the past, but we’ll say it once more: The Executive Branch of the Fed is wildly out-of-control (see Federal Government Made Simple to see how it has grown over the years), and the people of the States have pretty much come to accept what’s become a King-like ruler over them.

Now, because the President has become such a terrifyingly powerful agency, with so many Americans grumbling (but not doing anything) about the lack of choice for their supreme leader, we thought we’d take a moment to share our thoughts on why you should expect business as usual from our two saviors of the union: Money-bags Mitt and Overlord Obama. But you already know what to expect from Obama, so let’s focus on Romney – an individual many “conservatives” believe might just be the guy to turn things around.

State of Republican Party

But first, let’s review the state of the Republican Party in general, by taking a look at the article entitled GOP stands down on social issues, focuses on jobs, by Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press. In it, she writes, “Republicans stung by culture wars that dominated the nation’s political discourse this year are standing down on social issues…” Kellman notes that while the GOP plays around with abortion and family issues with little serious intentions to do anything about it, House Speaker John Boehner reminds folks that he’s focused on jobs – and not much else. As for someone in our own backyard, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri was quoted as saying “I truly believe that those things will shake out in a more positive way if we can just deal with the issues that we really need to deal with, on the economy and fiscal side, and shame on us if we don’t do it.”

So it should really come as no surprise that Establishment Republicans have, for the most part, settled on yet another fat-cat businessman with just enough “religion” to hopefully dupe Americans into voting for him. Let’s proceed, shall we?

Details

Leaving No Child Left Behind Behind

Though it expired in 2008, No Child Left Behind, the sweeping Bush-era education act that was passed in 2001 is still in effect, because federal lawmakers won’t just let it die.

“It’s time for it to go,” says Rep. Linden Bateman, R-Idaho Falls who believes that the law has forced educators to teach to a test and ignore other subjects, while unfairly labeling schools as “failing.” “It’s provided completely unrealistic expectations.”

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO.8 (2012) – No child left behind/request repeal per Rep. Bateman is a nonbinding and toothless resolution. Still, his position puts him at odds with the state’s education department, which wants to see the act re-authorized.

The question should be whether the federal government had the authority to enact the law in the first place. A cursory reading of the U.S. Constitution will not reveal the ‘educational clause’ or anything else to justify the Department of Education, or any laws that would mandate virtually unfunded educational requirements  placed on the States. So, if the federal government does not have the authority to do something, do they have the authority make others do it? Can you appropriate moneys for something you don’t have the authority to do so that you can ‘bribe’ others to do it?

“I’ve read the Constitution 100 times,” Bateman says. “I can’t see even a slight mention … that gives the feds any power in the field of education.” [The Constitution] does not say that the Federal government supersedes State laws and customs… instead, in that document’s own 10th Amendment, it states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People”

Details