Message 226 of 247 (623594) 07-11-2011 7:17 PM

Reply to: Message 217 by subbie 07-11-2011 4:39 PM

I really don't mean to be pedantic but:

Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 v Earls 536 U.S. 822 (2002) has to do with a state's right to drug screen kids for certain activities and the court agreed the state has such a right.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 536 U.S. 639 (2002) is an Establishment case about assisting poor families to pay for schooling in other than the failed public schools in Cleveland which the court found was proper.

Mitchell v. Helms 530 U.S. 793 (2000) is another Establishment case involving funding to private schools for "secular, neutral, and nonideological" programs which the court agreed was proper.

Meyer v. State of Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923) deals with individual's rights (via the Fourteenth Amendment) verses a state's attempt seen as an arbitrary restriction on private educational instruction where the court sided with the individual's right to private instruction.

These do not appear to apply to the discussion at hand where a state's right to determine public school curriculum is challenged.

I haven't the time to go through all the cases. Is there a case listed where the Court granted Congress supremacy over the states in determining public school curriculum?

I have no doubt that under some "necessary and proper" clause Congress could at least attempt such control, but I am not aware of such a standing.

Message 227 of 247 (623596) 07-11-2011 7:34 PM

Reply to: Message 224 by Straggler 07-11-2011 6:21 PM

And I think all of us, even Arte, agree.

I think Arte sometimes gets lost in his own rhetoric and emotion, but I read him as saying Tennessee has such a right, bad implementation as it is, and it's not anyone else's, including the Feds, right to challenge. Let the affected citizens of Tennessee challenge this idiocy.

I think the thing Arte misses is that we, all of us, have every right to express our dismay at this foolishness and call the legislature of Tennessee assholes. That is our right.

Edited by AZPaul3, : oopps

Edited by AZPaul3, : more oopps

Edited by AZPaul3, : goo god I am never going to get this right

Message 228 of 247 (623598) 07-11-2011 8:00 PM

Reply to: Message 225 by Artemis Entreri 07-11-2011 6:53 PM

I suppose that's as close as we should expect you to come to admitting you were wrong.

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Message 229 of 247 (623599) 07-11-2011 8:09 PM

Reply to: Message 226 by AZPaul3 07-11-2011 7:17 PM

However, in answer to your specific question, how about Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968), where the Court held that Arkansas could not forbid the teaching of a particular scientific theory? (I'll leave it to you to suss out what Arkansas wanted kept out of schools. It's not exactly a tough question.) It had nothing to do with the Necessary and Proper Clause or Congress, the Court decided the case under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Any time a state tries to do something with public school curriculum that runs afoul of the Constitution, federal courts are empowered to prohibit the state's action.

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Message 230 of 247 (623600) 07-11-2011 8:35 PM

Reply to: Message 229 by subbie 07-11-2011 8:09 PM

When you're right you're right.

[Ruth Buzzi]

Never mind.

[/Ruth Buzzi]

Message 231 of 247 (623612) 07-11-2011 11:43 PM

Reply to: Message 230 by AZPaul3 07-11-2011 8:35 PM

Not to be pedantic, but I think you meant either Gilda Radner or Emily Litella.

Edited by subbie, : Quote box

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Message 232 of 247 (623622) 07-12-2011 2:37 AM

Reply to: Message 231 by subbie 07-11-2011 11:43 PM

[Gilda Radner]

Oh.

Nevermind.

[/Gilda Radner]

Message 233 of 247 (623630) 07-12-2011 3:26 AM

Reply to: Message 227 by AZPaul3 07-11-2011 7:34 PM

But you guys really really do seem to have lost sight of the real issue by obsessing over what seems to me the relatively unimportant issue of exactly which branch of legislature is imposing shit laws on people.

Message 234 of 247 (623631) 07-12-2011 3:43 AM

Reply to: Message 225 by Artemis Entreri 07-11-2011 6:53 PM

Sure people would have disagreed about the legal intricacies. But the wider condemnation wouldn't have occurred if you had made it clear to begin with that you too find the actual law itself objectionable.

And it is this attitude that I find absolutely mystifying. It's like you guys see local government legislators as champions of the people and guardians of freedom no matter how fuckwitted, unlibertarian or pointlessly unnecessary and intrusive the laws they come up with are.

It genuinely makes no sense to me.

I wouldn't risk my career and livelihood and I doubt many teachers would either. Which means many of the liberal concerns about the effects of this legislation are warranted.

I am happy to drop the butt fucking issue but if you want to take another shot I am right behind you.

Message 235 of 247 (623634) 07-12-2011 4:18 AM

Reply to: Message 233 by Straggler 07-12-2011 3:26 AM

Hey, we're Americans! We gotta do things in a complex way.

Without all the hand wringing over who has what right to do idiotic things and who has what right to get upset over it, then we are all just voicing our opinions and, in a case like this, that makes for a rather short bland thread.

And it can get worse.

If we want to discuss what can be done about it then we need to obsess over why the body in question did what it did so we can obsess over who has legal standing as an injured party then obsess over in which court that standing resides and then obsess on what grounds are available in that specific court to make a challenge.

We could go another 200 messages in this thread on that discussion.

Straggler, ain't this fun for you?

But this terribly off topic and I've already crossed the Moose once this week so I think we better move on.

Edited by AZPaul3, : added

Message 236 of 247 (623641) 07-12-2011 7:37 AM

Reply to: Message 233 by Straggler 07-12-2011 3:26 AM

really? I explained myself on page 4 and had to defend myself for 11 more pages. and I am the obsessed one? ROFLMFAO!

Typing the same thing over and over again for 11 pages, if AZPaul3 had never joined in I'd still be saying the same thing right now, who knows if this would have ever ended.

Message 237 of 247 (623642) 07-12-2011 7:47 AM

Reply to: Message 227 by AZPaul3 07-11-2011 7:34 PM

I have not once allowed emotion into this, unless laughing out loud at the nonsense that this place is counts, it has been hilarious. other than that, yah purdy much.

I didn't miss that, people can disagree all they want to about anything, I was merely pointing out the falsehoods in the OP. the "inevitable consequences of the law", when I asked for evidence of this assertion, the answer was basically to attack me (because they have no evidence), and of course they attacked me out of context and off topic, using ad hominem and strawman after strawman (but this is EvC and after 500 posts it is to be expected). Straggler was the only one who wanted clarification, and asked me questions instead of acting like a child.

well its been funny; until next time...

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Message 238 of 247 (623649) 07-12-2011 9:58 AM

Reply to: Message 235 by AZPaul3 07-12-2011 4:18 AM

Well I guess the "fun" has to stop at some point.....

If we all agree that the law itself is objectionable then I have nothing more to say really.

Message 239 of 247 (623693) 07-12-2011 3:34 PM

Obama responded:

This, coupled with Boehner saying the debt ceiling is Obama's problem and it's his fault if it doesn't get resolved. Lying fuck.

Now, someone remind me: why should ANYONE, other than the uber rich, vote (R)?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.