Remember when Obama...

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a wonderful idea....except that to allow the fed unlimited power over us is a very bad thing.
The Constitution doesn't allow the President's wife to dictate school children's lunch menu throughout the land.
Do you think that they should have the legal ability to do anything they think is right, even when it's unconstitutional?
Or just the things you approve of?

I would that most people would approach similarily to something about like "we have this lead-contaminated water...but it works so we'll keep using it because that darned gubmint making us want to give these kids lead-free water."

 

[Revoltingest]

No. I just think that the healthier school lunch program was a good idea. Trump went out of his way to cancel it, and he didn't provide any reasoning as to why it was a bad thing.

Provided or not, a great reason to cancel it is that it's an over-reach of federal power.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would that most people would approach similarily to something about like "we have this lead-contaminated water...but it works so we'll keep using it because that darned gubmint making us want to give these kids lead-free water."

Your analogy doesn't address which arm of "gubmint" is doing what.
If you advocate allowing the fed to do anything it believes right, regardless
of constitutional authority, then I caution you about giving Trump such power.
He might misuse it.

Only I can be trusted with it.

 

[leibowde84]

Provided or not, a great reason to cancel it is that it's an over-reach of federal power.

Why is that a good reason if it was a good idea? And, how specifically was it overreach? It is important that the Federal Government has control over public education, or else we would have things like creationism being taught as a plausible alternative to evolution and Noah's ark as actual history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is that a good reason if it was a good idea? And, how specifically was it overreach? It is important that the Federal Government has control over public education, or else we would have things like creationism being taught as a plausible alternative to evolution and Noah's ark as actual history.

Teaching creationism in public schools falls under the First Amendment, which (by the
Incorporation Doctrine) applies to the states. The Constitution doesn't grant the fed
authority over school lunch menus. This is even prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

If we allow the fed to implement every "good idea" (which is a determination which
the party in power would make), then this would afford them unlimited power.
Suppose they decided to ban Muslims?
Some think it a good idea.
Should the Constitution not stand in the way?

 

[leibowde84]

Teaching creationism in public schools falls under the First Amendment, which (by the
Incorporation Doctrine) applies to the states. The Constitution doesn't grant the fed
authority over school lunch menus. This is even prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

If we allow the fed to implement every "good idea" (which is a determination which
the party in power would make), then this would afford them unlimited power.
Suppose they decided to ban Muslims?
Some think it a good idea.
Should the Constitution not stand in the way?

Why, in your opinion, was the school lunch program unconstitutional?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why, in your opinion, was the school lunch program unconstitutional?

The Constitution doesn't delegate such power to the fed.
The 10th Amendment reserves that right for the states.

My turn.
How do you justify the fed taking such control?

 

[leibowde84]

The Constitution doesn't delegate such power to the fed.
The 10th Amendment reserves that right for the states.

My turn.
How do you justify the fed taking such control?

That control was taken in 1945 by Truman via the National School Lunch Act. So, the Federal Government wasn't taking any control; they already had it.

 

[Revoltingest]

That control was taken in 1945 by Truman via the National School Lunch Act. So, the Federal Government wasn't taking any control; they already had it.

Does a prior wrong make all subsequent ones right?
If it did, we could still set up prison camps for those of a particular ethnicity.
Stare decisis should not work that way.

There's a scene from a movie I like....

 

[leibowde84]

Does a prior wrong make all subsequent ones right?
If it did, we could still set up prison camps for those of a particular ethnicity.
Stare decisis should not work that way.

There's a scene from a movie I like....

It wasn't wrong. Public schools get federal subsidies for student lunches. Thus, the Federal Government can attach guidelines to those subsidies. There was nothing unconstitutional about the National School Lunch Act. The states, by welcoming subsidies so that kids can eat, necessarily accept the federal guidelines that go along with it. So, there is no constitutionality question. The states can refuse the subsidies if they want to avoid the guidelines.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't wrong. Public schools get federal subsidies for student lunches. Thus, the Federal Government can attach guidelines to those subsidies. There was nothing unconstitutional about the National School Lunch Act. The states, by welcoming subsidies so that kids can eat, necessarily accept the federal guidelines that go along with it. So, there is no constitutionality question. The states can refuse the subsidies if they want to avoid the guidelines.

The fed's use of subsidies is a pretty clear attempt to evade Constitutional limits by round about means.
By your argument, it would be legal for the fed to raise taxes to the point where we all need its largesse
just to survive, & that they could impose any condition they want by threatening denial.
Bill Clinton tried that when he argued that public housing residents give up the right against warrantless
searches when they accept the benefit.

 

[leibowde84]

By your argument, it would be legal for the fed to raise taxes to the point where we all need its largesse just to survive, & that they could impose any condition they want.

They could impose conditions on the states you mean? Or individuals? If you are talking about individuals, that is not related to the subject at hand. If you are talking about pushing conditions on states, I'm not sure I understand your scenario.

 

[leibowde84]

The fed's use of subsidies is a pretty clear attempt to evade Constitutional limits by round about means.
By your argument, it would be legal for the fed to raise taxes to the point where we all need its largesse
just to survive, & that they could impose any condition they want by threatening denial.
Bill Clinton tried that when he argued that public housing residents give up the right against warrantless
searches when they accept the benefit.

Federal subsidies almost always have strings attached. Are you against any subsidies from the federal government?

 

[Revoltingest]

They could impose conditions on the states you mean? Or individuals? If you are talking about individuals, that is not related to the subject at hand. If you are talking about pushing conditions on states, I'm not sure I understand your scenario.

The fed gains great power over us by taxing us, & then doling it out to us.
Witness what Trump is trying to do to sanctuary cities.
If the fed only taxed enuf to handle constitutionally authorized functions,
the cities would not be dependent upon it. But because they are, that
hand that feeds is the hand that controls.....or tries to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Federal subsidies almost always have strings attached. Are you against any subsidies from the federal government?

Yes.
The power to take, the power to return, & the power to impose conditions is control.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes.
The power to take, the power to return, & the power to impose conditions is control.

It's up to the states though. They can always refuse money and raise state taxes to cover the cost. The states are also represented by congress, and state representatives passed the National School Lunch Act. So, are you against congress in general? I mean, the states did this to themselves.

 

[Wirey]

Sorry @Revoltingest but I think you're missing the larger picture. Feeding children is merely guaranteeing them the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absolutely the responsibility of the government to protect citizens who are unable to protect themselves, and feeding a kid so they can concentrate in school is in no way an overreach of governmental power. In fact, failing to do so is a failure to protect those citizens least able to protect themselves. Poor, stupid, and bad parents will continue to have children who's only crime is being born to that family. It is all of our responsibility to protect them. Remember, I was one of them, so I know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Grumpuss]

So, as I suspected, you didn't and seemingly can't provide even one source to support your accusation, instead just making insults about me whereas you don't even know me.

So, since you did not and apparently cannot add anything to the discussion, ...

It doesn't work like that. You made an unfounded accusation. It's your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it. (This is a religious-based website, remember.)

And I think it's clear from others' comments about you, what you're all about.

 

[leibowde84]

Excuse me, it isn't. Obama's DOJ had reporters and their families threatened. For doing their jobs.

Please explain why it's okay when Obama attempts to shred the Constitution, but when Trump does it, it's time to freak out?

Can you back this up with a source?

 

[columbus]

Sorry @Revoltingest but I think you're missing the larger picture. Feeding children is merely guaranteeing them the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absolutely the responsibility of the government to protect citizens who are unable to protect themselves, and feeding a kid so they can concentrate in school is in no way an overreach of governmental power. In fact, failing to do so is a failure to protect those citizens least able to protect themselves. Poor, stupid, and bad parents will continue to have children who's only crime is being born to that family. It is all of our responsibility to protect them. Remember, I was one of them, so I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Frankly, I would be happier ending the "federal 'freeway' interstate road system" give away than cutting services like food for kids.

I've never been to, or enrolled anyone in, a public school. Nevertheless, the bulk of my property taxes goes to pay for them. And I don't mind at all! I'm way to selfish to want to live in a world populated by ignorant people who happened to choose their parents badly. Same with lunches, and practically every other basic support services for kids I have ever heard about.
Tom