idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah, your response of "then argue to make an amendment" kinda makes no sense when the original point was that the federal government should be spending more. That quite obviously includes the necessary legislation for spending.
I was responding to more than just increased federal funding. That specific response was to an argument that we shift education as a whole from a state responsibility to a federal one. That's a **** of a lot more than just "let's increase funding for some federal education grants". And it would require a constitutional amendment.
You tried to derail the conversation about saying it would be contrary to the separation of powers.
The thing I was responding to would be. You do realize that there are multiple arguments being made here, and thus multiple responses are valid? You're trying to apply my response to one thing as though I said it in response to something else. Try to keep on track please.
My response was that I don't think the separation of powers is important here. You either need to accept my argument, or respond why I'm wrong. Telling me to make an argument just kinda puts us in this infinite loop of stupidity.
If we are talking about changing from a model where the states and localities raise taxes and fund/mange education directly and locally with the federal government creating grant programs that those local education systems can apply for and receive to one where everyone pays federal taxes directly into one big pool which is then divvied up by the federal government across the whole nation, then you have to amend the constitution. Since this was the exact thing someone argued we should do
, then me pointing out that this violates states rights and would/should require a constitutional amendment to do is perfectly valid.
If you are arguing that no constitutional amendment is required in that case, then you are wrong. If you are arguing about something different, then you are wrong. Either way, you are wrong.
Oh, and if you think Hamilton liked the idea of limited government, I'm starting to understand how you can think what Republicans want is small government. Hamilton supported the concept of lifelong representatives, he wanted the presidential veto to be absolute, he was an advocate for the federal government's rights to tax the people to fund a federal military force (which even many federalists were afraid of), as well as a national control over the economy. I could keep going, but I won't. Some of these ideas aren't problematic for us (largely because they've existed for so long and we accept them now... to an extent), but for the time he was essentially arguing for a non-hereditary monarchy. In fact, his own draft of the constitution was EXTREMELY similar to the British parliamentary system of the time.
You are making the common mistake (common these days anyway) of confusing size and scope. Hamilton believed that there were specific things that the federal government should do, and believed that it should have full authority and power to do those things. His concept of limited government was not that government should be limited in authority in the areas it operated in, but that it should be limited in the areas it operated in. Hamilton also was a fervent advocate for the idea that any power that did not need to be operated at the federal level should not be and that the states
should have absolute power in those areas.
The mistake you are making is the same one people make today when they try to argue that conservatives are being inconsistent (or hypocritical) when they oppose funding for health care, while supporting it for the military. It's not about the dollars spent (not entirely at least). It's about the things that we're giving the federal government authority over. The same can be said when conservatives fail to get as upset at Romney for his health care in Mass, as we do over Obamacare. Because it's not just about what is being done, but what level of the government is doing it.
At the end of the day, if the federal government fails to maintain a sufficient military, there is a risk that our liberties could be lost as a result. If the federal government fails to pay for people's health care, there is no risk to liberty. Since both require an infringement of liberties to provide (in the form of taxes at the very least), then we should avoid the one that doesn't protect our liberties and allow the one that does. The federal government has no business providing health care. Period. It has no business providing education either. The fact that it does do these things (even partially as in the case of education) should not be taken as a justification for it doing more of these things.