The Republican platform respects the Constitution—but only when it's convenient.

Jacob Sullum | September 10, 2008


The Republican platform unveiled last week notes in passing that "the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education." Yet the same document offers opinions on all manner of local educational issues, including the virtues of phonics, the evils of sex education, the wisdom of merit pay for teachers, and the folly of social promotion.

That contradiction illustrates the hollowness of the Republican commitment to "constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions." The Republicans (like the Democrats) respect the Constitution only when it's convenient.

You might say that's old news. Yet while campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Department of Education. So did Bob Dole in 1996. After two terms of a Republican president who proudly charged in the opposite direction, the most John McCain can muster is a promise to "identify and eliminate ineffective programs"—that is, to make unconstitutional activities more efficient.

Although the Department of Education is still with us, by threatening to eliminate it Reagan and like-minded Republicans signaled that they understood some matters are beyond the purview of the federal government. It's hard to find evidence of that understanding in the current GOP platform.

In 1887 Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a bill allocating $10,000 to help drought-stricken farmers in Texas, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Nowadays the Republican Party takes for granted the propriety of both "a natural disaster insurance policy" and an "economic safety net for farmers."

Likewise, the GOP platform does not question the legitimacy of the federal government's enormous entitlement programs, saying only that they should be "reformed" and "modernized." Regarding Social Security, McCain does not go even as far as George W. Bush, who proposed letting Americans shift some of their payroll taxes to private accounts. By contrast, the current platform calls for "personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to" the existing system of intergenerational income redistribution.

Far from shrinking the federal government, the Republicans want to enlarge it, providing "aid to those hurt by the housing crisis," solving "the energy crisis" (undeterred by the Carteresque connotations of that phrase), "expanding access to higher education," seeking "a major expansion of support" for certain kinds of stem cell research, even "returning Americans to the moon as a step toward a mission to Mars." The platform does not explain how these initiatives qualify as "legitimate constitutional functions."

The Republicans are committed to "continuing the fight against illegal drugs," even though that fight, unlike alcohol prohibition, was never authorized by a constitutional amendment. They want to impose national bans on gay marriage, human cloning, assisted suicide, and online gambling, even while declaring that "Congress must respect the limits imposed by the Tenth Amendment," which reserves to the states or the people "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Despite their eagerness to trample individual freedom in all these areas, Republicans claim "the other party wants more government control over people's lives," but "Republicans do not."

The Republicans "lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states." Yet their position that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment implies that the Constitution not only allows but requires a national ban on abortion, which also would override state policy choices.

Defending "the free-speech right to devote one's resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports," the Republicans say they "oppose any restrictions or conditions upon those activities that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals." Yet their presidential nominee is famous for pushing precisely such restrictions and conditions in the name of "campaign finance reform."

As an indicator of where McCain would take the country after eight years of big-government conservatism, the 2008 Republican platform is not just disappointing. It's incoherent.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

"No Child Left Behind".

You do realize Obama approved that philosophy in education right? In fact he plans to throw something like $ at it (i think).

Not quite like the program current stands...you should review the specifics of his education policy.

No child left behind has turned into something more awful than anyone imagined it could. Children are taught to take standardized tests instead of to reason, experiment and find new answers.

No wonder children in other countries all over the world are surpassing our children in critical areas like math and science.

He is plannig on making revisions. However, correct me if i'm wrong, the major problem behind this is not separating out children that need extra attention, thus taking attention away from the main body. Right? Once again, most of his "improvements" are minor, no?

I don't know about that. But..I am going to look into it.

I think that it is an awful program.

Please do. Notify me of any of my shortcomings. I may sound cocky in my limited knowledge but if people use facts i am willing to bite the bullet and admit where i fault.

It's not about making you sound wrong. I honestly haven't heard that before and I would like to know if Obama backs that program. There are too many negatives with that program to me.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/NCLB-ActII/



See All edweek.org's Blogs
NCLB: Act II

The latest news on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.

David J. Hoff has been reporting on the biggest issues in K-12 education for more than 10 years for Education Week. He primarily reports now on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.
September 17, 2008
'Top-Down' Politics Turned NCLB Into Monster
With Monday's news that there's a 10,000 pound gorilla called NCLB, I decided to go out and look for it.

I made stops at an Aspen Institute forum and a Department of Education advisory board meeting. I never found that gorilla.

By yesterday I was asking: Why is it that NCLB is seen as a monstrosity on the campaign trail but not in Washington?

I think I've got an answer, thanks to Michael Dannenberg of the New America Foundation. Dannenberg, who helped write the law as a staff member for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., explained to me that the politics of NCLB are more "top-down" than "left-right."

He means that the policy elites in Washington—President Bush, Sen. Kennedy, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., to name a few—endorse the general principles of the law: standards, testing, accountability for results. You can also put states leaders such as governors and chiefs into that group.

But people on the ground who have to put those things into practice resist them. They don't necessarily believe that tests deliver results that should be used for accountability and see NCLB supplanting the decisions they've usually made.

That's why events where Washington policy folks (like the one put on by Aspen on Monday; see here for some complaints about the lopsided agenda) invited the speakers, the message on NCLB is upbeat. It's also why the NEA and AFT are fighting to change the law; their members on the ground are demanding it.

It's also why Barack Obama and John McCain are either ignoring NCLB or are making promises to change it. When one of them moves into the White House, which side will they choose? The Washington leaders (aka the top) or the teachers, school board members, and district leaders (aka the down)?

P.S. Dannenberg points out that some NCLB issues follow the traditional left v. right debate. Funding and vouchers are the best examples.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

September 16, 2008
NCLB: Wild Beast or Creature to Be Tamed?
I'm still on my search for the 10,000 pound gorilla that is the No Child Left Behind Act. Even with this photo to guide me, I didn't find it at the U.S. Department of Education this morning.

Instead of being scared of the law, the department officials there seemed to be planning for its future. "We think you're going to be a good resource for the department," Deputy Secretary of Education Raymond J. Simon told members of the National Technical Advisory Council. "You're going to be a good resource for Congress."

All of this bodes well for NCLB, he said. Bush administration officials will set new policies in motion that improve the law, and their replacements will be ready to put their own stamp on those policies. And Congress will have the advice of experts as it decides what to do about reauthorizing it, Simon said.

The panel members then delved into a discussion of how to structure politics to assure that a state's performance index is accurate and whether to make changes in the department's policies over growth models. There was no talk of trying to slay NCLB—or even make major changes to it.

After two days, I'm asking myself: Why is it that NCLB is seen as a monstrosity on the campaign trail but not in Washington?

Maybe I'll have an answer tomorrow.

if yea go to Obama's campaign page you willsee that he and his running mate approve of the whole No child left behind thing. They just wanna tweak it and fund it with a few billion dollars. (It said ten billion a few months ago. The info on that website is always changing though, it is getting close to the elections after all.) According to them the education was too standardized, and under funded. These are the changes they are trying to make.

"Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama and Biden will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama and Biden will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Take it as you will. There is good and bad. Why keep the act in the first place? Still seems like they are trying to control schools. Once again, correct me if you think i am wrong, i am no teacher after all.

When the majority of our teachers can't pass the tests how can we expect our students to do so...

If you think I'm kidding go look at Nevada circa 1995 or so.

They administered those standardized test to teachers in an attempt to shake out bad teachers from the system.

40% failed the test... Resulting in teachers unions sueing to have the results suppressed.

Back where I used to live, I know for a fact that the school system hired a meth head to teach elementary, so it's not a shock that our Nazi propaganda school system can't teach little johnny to read his D#ck and Jane book.