[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

My state takes federal money.

Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? I thought it was the peoople's money. Doesn't the Federal Gvt. take the money from the people? Doesn't it take it from the people of your State in the first place, before your State "takes" it back? Isn't Big Brother bribing and coercing your State and its people with their own money?

He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law.

It's a little more complicated than that. Congressmen are, constitutionally, supposed to be representing the will of their constitutents, not imposing beliefs against that will. Nor do they have, on their own, that power. It requires two thirds of Congress to allow consideration of an amendment, and must be ratified by three fourths of the States. Much, much tougher, aparently, than forcing us to by health insurance, even though there is no constitutional provision for the Federal Gvt. to mandate that we must buy anything. Nor is there a provision that the Federal Gvt can "impose" ANY education law. And if Santorum was mispercieving the will of his constituents, he could be unelected.

Maybe if the amendment was passed the state would have rejected federal funding, I don't know. No where else in modern public education has the teaching of a religious belief been so close to becoming part of federal law.

Again, this is the reason why the Constitution does not grant such power to the Federal Gvt. It does not grant the Federal Gvt power to create education law. But, of course, voila, it does, and you seem to be okay with that, except not if it presents theories of creationism.

Theocracy, whether Santorum law or Sharia law or Vishnu law is scary. Sounds like we are both opposed to it since you have clearly stated you oppose any federal involvement in education.

Theocracy!?!? OK, I'm with you, if Santorum was proposing an ammendment to create a theocratic state, he is clearly not fit for office. Of course, as was mentioned, he doesn't have the power to do that. And, you can thank the 17t ammendment for giving Senators the ability to be lone activists. But you're OK with federal involvement in education, just not . . .

Education would only be the start; there should be no federal drug laws, subsidies for business/agriculture or energy, no earmarks (Santorum loves them), etc. Basically, you would prefer the government of 1810.

Education has already been the start of Federal Gvt encroachment on State and individual rights--just as all the other things you mention have been. They have all been part of the progressive creation of, what you seem OK with, the administrative, regulatory, centralized, all-powerful State. And earmarks are the method that Congress can deal with this State. They are the method by which representatives can show their consitutuents that they are actually doing something. The States have now become lobbyists to the Federal Gvt. I was surprised to learn that lobbying the Federal Gvt has only become as massively entrenched and widespread as it is since the 1960's. It took time for the central gvt. to become so powerful, and it has become so powerful that it has become the mecca for handouts, subsidies, and regulations that favor powerful lobbies. I take it you prefer that to whatever you think the government of 1810 is. I prefer the protection of individual liberty that the original Constitution with its separation of powers, limited government, and emphasis on self-government, confers--at any date and time.