Tonight the Blount County Commission is being asked to vote on six federal grants, one for equipment for a school and five traffic grants. All six grants are unconstitutional; therefore, I will be voting no on all six even though the equipment is for a school in my district.
The first thing that I did when taking office was raise my right hand and affirm that I would obey the federal and state constitutions. Thus even though we might need equipment for schools, I am constrained by my oath of office and must vote no. I would support a constitutionally authorized source of funding for food equipment for schools but not a funding source that violates my oath of office and the supreme law of the land.
Conservatives like to talk about the federal government having no role in education and some will even campaign on abolishing the federal Department of Education but that quickly becomes empty campaign rhetoric after the election. Having read the constitution many times, finding nothing in it to authorize these grants and having made a solemn affirmation to uphold the constitution, I will be voting no.
Additionally, there has been some talk about the DUI road blocks being unconstitutional. They are but that misses the greater point for the county funding body. The funding for all 5 five traffic grants is unconstitutional. There is no authority in the federal constitution for the feds to tax us (gas tax) and use the money to fund a police state. Thus, voting no on one or two and voting yes on the rest is inconsistent with the supreme law of the land, the constitution.
In case anyone has any doubt, I will leave you with a letter that President James Madison wrote when he vetoed a public works bill (think roads and water ways, what we are dealing with tonight). He said he was constrained by the constitution to veto the legislation because there is no authority for it in the constitution. He should know, since he was the primary author of the constitution.
Let freedom ring!
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
President James Madison
1. The Libertarian Party supports all of your freedoms, all of the time
2. The Libertarian Party is consistent and principled
3. Voting for old party politicians tells them that you want to keep government big
4. Voting Libertarian is the only clear message you can send
5. Voting Libertarian forces the old parties to take the libertarian positions
6. Because the old parties don’t want you to
7. Voting Libertarian helps your favorite “libertarian-leaning“ old party politician
For great explanations to each of these reasons, click the link above or here.
I don’t agree with every statement in this op-ed, but it raises a good point. There’s too much emphasis on party politics. This may be a consequence of big government. A couple of years ago I read an article about political views being more important in the success of a marriage than religion. Society needs to take a hard look at classifying people based on party labels, because not everyone fits in the right-left paradigm.
The NEA proves correct on good ol’ Resolution B-83 once again:
“The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience.”
“A federal program that has drawn criticism in recent weeks for supplying surplus military gear to local police has also provided high-powered rifles, armored vehicles and other equipment to police at public schools, some of whom were unprepared for what they were getting.”
What can I say? Homeschoolers simply cannot afford our own MRAPs, grenade launchers, etc. to keep up with the Joneses. And the mean ol’ NEA doesn’t think we should be able to play with the ones the public schools are getting.
I guess we will just have to settle for THP no refusal vampire stops on the local highways and do the best we can to get our kids “socialized”.
“The New York Times recently published a fascinating interview with Yong Zhao, a professor of education at the University of Oregon. Zhao was born in China; unlike many American intellectuals, he does not think U.S. schools should try to emulate China.”
“‘If the United States and the rest of the West are concerned about being overtaken by China, the best solution is to avoid becoming China,’ he said.”
“Chinese schools stamp out individuality and make kids spend all their time preparing for exams that are focused on “narrow intelligence.” This produces fewer creative and entrepreneurial people, which is precisely what the authoritarian national government of China wants, according to Zhao.”
“Zhao warned that the kind of standardization offered by Common Core is a danger to a free culture and a free economy.” (emphasis mine)
When will Republicans and Democrats stop forcing us to pay for this?
“Bureaucrats love to throw fancy technology at schools and expect it to magically improve students’ learning outcomes. That’s easier than hiring, training, and fairly compensating good teachers, right?”
“By the time Jerry Crocamo, a computer network engineer, arrived in Hoboken’s school system in 2011, every seventh, eighth, and ninth grader had a laptop. Each year a new crop of seventh graders were outfitted. Crocamo’s small tech staff was quickly overwhelmed with repairs.”
“We had “half a dozen kids in a day, on a regular basis, bringing laptops down, going ‘my books fell on top of it, somebody sat on it, I dropped it,’ ” said Crocamo.”
“Screens cracked. Batteries died. Keys popped off. Viruses attacked. Crocamo found that teenagers with laptops are still . . . teenagers.”
““We bought laptops that had reinforced hard-shell cases so that we could try to offset some of the damage these kids were going to do,” said Crocamo. “I was pretty impressed with some of the damage they did anyway. Some of the laptops would come back to us completely destroyed.””
Isn’t this why the taxes were just raised in Blount County?
“…the billionaire philanthropist [Bill Gates] has spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting Common Core through the advocacy efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
But wait a minute—doesn’t Gates work for a pretty big computer company, or something? Oh, and doesn’t the testing component of Common Core require schools to upgrade their computer software? Who wants to bet that Core-aligned standardized testing requires Windows 8?
It does! As The Post‘s Valerie Strauss points out, a Windows web page actually recommends that schools hurry up and buy the latest Windows software in order to enjoy a smoother transition to tech-heavy standardized testing required by Common Core…”
Reposted from whatiscommoncore.blogspot.com:
“Governor Fallin stated:
“We are capable of developing our own Oklahoma academic standards that will be better than Common Core … What should have been a bipartisan policy is now widely regarded as the president’s plan to establish federal control of curricula, testing and teaching strategies.
“We cannot ignore the widespread concern of citizens, parents, educators and legislators who have expressed fear that adopting Common Core gives up local control of Oklahoma’s public schools…
“For that reason I am signing HB 3399 to repeal and replace Common Core with Oklahoma designed and implemented education standards… They must raise the bar – beyond what Common Core offers…
The withdrawal from Common Core by Governor Fallin –not only a member, but the chair of the National Governors Association –the same NGA to which Bill Gates has given millions upon millions of dollars to create and implement Common Core– is a very big deal.
And the elephant that’s been crowding the room for years now –Common Core’s pretense of academic excellence– has taken a serious hit with Governor Fallin’s acknowledgement that Oklahoma’s soon-to-be-written NEW standards “must raise the bar beyond what Common Core offers.“
“How I wish I could be a fly on the wall, listening to conversations in Oklahoma now! What is the local Oklahoma PTA saying? What are Oklahoma state and local school boards thinking? And what are Oklahoma’s chambers of commerce saying now to their members? All these figureheads have pushed pro-Common Core marketing on parents and teachers and businesses for several years, and now they are having to change their whole story.
How many thousands of not-from-Oklahoma teachers plan to move from other states to Oklahoma –solely based on this turn of educational events? How many parents in other states, who are exhausted from the effort of being endlessly dismissed by their state school boards and governors, are thinking what I’m thinking?
If the rest of our U.S. governors, legislators and school boards don’t see the light –and fast– it’s going to be wahoo, pack your bags and let’s move to Oklahoma.” (emphasis mine)
Remember all those stories about TN teachers threatening to leave for a $5k bonus in Georgia (plus that extra bonus of a state income tax and increased housing costs)? Wonder how many would leave to not deal with Bill Gates-based education and their education prostitute front (TNSCORE, Achieve Inc., PARCC, LIFT, Fordham, TFA)? Sounds like Huffman and Barton need to make a trip to Oklahoma to remind them that punting Common Core is a step backward academically… just put it on the PARCC tab, Bill Gates is buying.
By Eric Holcombe
Some excerpts from Eagle Crest Charter Academy President Brian Polet’s resignation letter:
“Over the past few months it has come to light that this Academy has suffered the chaos over the past two years of what is commonly called Common Core.”
“This copy-written, corporate-driven education model has been developed by non-teachers and edu-crats from Washington to Lansing to the detriment of students, parents, taxpayers and local school boards. Without control of curriculum and a limited control of budgets, CC has effectively removed local control from parents and put it the hands of ESPs, the Dept. of Ed and state boards.”
“More disturbing to me is the inability to guarantee the data privacy of our students. Neither NHA or the State Board will be able to protect a child’s data from corporate vultures, marketers, and political interest groups from being used in a malevolent way. Equally troubling is the ability for educational personnel to manipulate tests and assessments to move any student into certain fields or vocations and to modify behavior without consent or knowledge of the parent.”
“With CC, we no longer have the Socratic model of education, but a new Bill Gates vocational schooling for worker bees and drones. Plainly, I have not left education, education has left me and more importantly, our students.”
Sounds like Jamie Woodson and Kevin Huffman should parade Arne Duncan around Michigan too and remind them how Common Core is “state led”.
Jim Folts asks some hard hitting, important questions about meetings that took place at each Blount County School before the recent May 6th primary election. The Chairman of the Education Committee, Commissioner Ron French, said that some Commissioners were present at the meetings of the Schools in their districts, if they were called. Jim Folts serves on the Education Committee, yet he was not invited to these meetings.
Election Laws that may have been broken: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4i9IFqGDcTKNVBmZFQ0ZkpVcVE/edit?pli=1
Audio of Education Committee meeting where Jim Folts questions Director of Schools Rob Britt. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4i9IFqGDcTKZkY2akdSWFMwZXc/edit?pli=1
According to Rob Britt, Mayor Ed Mitchell called him to have a meeting at each school. Rob Britt says the purpose of the meetings was, “Real simple, it’s just to educate our faculty and staff on the sales tax referendum.”
Tennessee Code Annotated 2-19-134
(a) It is unlawful for any person to coerce or direct any employee to vote for any measure, party or person who may be a candidate for any office, or for any person who may be a candidate for nomination for any office, to threaten the discharge of such employee if the employee votes or does not vote for any such candidate for nomination or for office, or for any particular policy or measure.
Were these meetings mandatory? Were employees told what the funds from the sales tax referendum would be used for? Were certain Commissioners, facing opponents, invited when others weren’t? A yes answer to these questions would likely mean that one or more of these law(s) was/were broken.
An investigation should be conducted by the DA. If any of these laws were broken, then Rob Britt should be demoted and the Mayor should resign.