|
American
Constitutional Research Service
Seminole,
FL
August,
21ST , 2001
A
fight for our children’s minds
John
William Kurowski (8-21-01)
The President of the United States has indicated in his speech
today that he embraces the concept of “democracy”, and also asserts he
supports “local” control of public education. The Founding Fathers
likewise believed in “local control“, but feared “democracy”.
This is the very reason the founders did not provide the President
or Congress with any power whatsoever to meddle in State constitutionally
authorized public education.
Maryland’s
Constitution, for example, provides the constitutional wording for a
mandated local control: “The General Assembly, at its First Session
after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout
the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and
shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”
[Article VIII ]. The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic
terms: [Art.4, Declaration of Rights], “…the People of this State have
the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and
police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.” And, under
Art. 3, the idea of a mandated local control is again restated: “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people thereof.”. This very provision of Maryland’s
Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States
in their ratification of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States!
So, why has the President stated he is in favor of “local
control“, if he is really in favor of Congress’ involvement through an
unconstitutionally authorized federal education plan?
Why not close down the U.S. Department of Education, Mr. President,
if you are really in favor of local control? Are you unaware that Lawrence
Uzzell, special Assistant to the Undersecretary of the Department of
Education during the Reagan Administration, revealed, as documented by Mr.
Ronald L. Trowbridge, vice president for external programs and
communications at Hillsdale College:see BACK TO SKOOL D E V I L' S D E AL http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/t
rowbridge091597.html
that ‘the Department of Education regulation-writers openly dictate to
schools? The department enforces a total of more than 1,000 pages of
fine-print laws and regulations.
The folks in Washington, D.C. have long had the power to exercise
"...exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" [see Art. 1,
Sec. 8, Cl. 17, U.S. CONST.] over the District of Columbia school system,
and also have had almost unlimited resources to create a model educational
system for the states to follow, and the result of the grant of such
unlimited power is an admitted tragedy to say the least!
Why does the President want to spread this same arrangement to each
of the united States, and have Congress act as an overseer in the
disbursement of revenue by regulation? Surely, if taxpayer funds are
available in the federal treasury to be handed out by the President to
assist in the necessary expenses of locally operated schools, why not
simply reduce taxes by the needed amount, and leave these needed resources
within the various states rather than taxing them from the states to
Washington, D.C. to feed those holding Department of Education "plum
jobs",[see DEPT. OF EMBEZZLEMENT] http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/
july/mm_embezlle.htm
and then returning a fraction of this money back to the States under the
heading of a "federal education plan" --- a plan cleverly
providing a court-approved-means [the power of the purse] necessary for an
eventual federal take over of all local schools involved in such a plan?
[see
GROVE CITY COLLEGE v. BELL, 465 U.S. 555 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getca
se.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=465++&
page=555
And
NORTH
HAVEN BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BELL, 456 U.S. 512 (1982)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getca
se.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=456++
&page=512
The fact is, the President’s plan unwittingly assists those
engaged in the subjugation of our constitutional limited republic, and
especially plays into the hands of an identifiable group favoring
“democracy” over our constitutional limited republic, who now seem to
be entering the final stages of a very long and calculated fight -- a
fight to gain control over the minds of America’s children so they may
complete the illusion of our system being a representative “democracy”
-- a system in which folks in government would then be set free to impose
their will upon the people without the restraints of a constitutional
limited republic. Democracy can best be described as mob-rule government,
very different from our Constitutional limited Republic...our Constitution
being designed to protect local control of the people’s affairs, the
individual and property rights, democracy yielding to mob-rule feeling and
group theft!
In closing, let us remember once again our system is not a
democracy nor intended to be a democracy -- it is a constitutionally
limited Republic, protected by Art. IV , Sec. 4, United States
Constitution.
The fear of democracy by many of the founders was aptly stated by
John Adams, a principal force in the American Revolutionary:
"democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down
all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time,
it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."
God save us from the pending demise of our once honorable
constitutional limited republic!
John
William Kurowski
American
Constitutional Research Service
Seminole,
FL
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its
author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for
quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
|
