Why are people so upset about Common Core?

[Anonymous]

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

nice theory. In practice, it is stealing money from one state and giving LOTS of it to others. Federal overreach on programs such as Race to the Top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP

You are not correct.

Oh gosh, PP, now you've done it. Because the only thing better than 107 pages about how the Common Core standards are a synonym for everything anybody doesn't like about education in the US is 107 pages about how the Common Core standards are a synonym for everything anybody doesn't like about education and constitutional law in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

nice theory. In practice, it is stealing money from one state and giving LOTS of it to others. Federal overreach on programs such as Race to the Top.

You watch a lot of Fox News, don't you?

What you just said has no content or facts. It's just buzz words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
nice theory. In practice, it is stealing money from one state and giving LOTS of it to others. Federal overreach on programs such as Race to the Top.

I think you may be correct. I have read that several states are large beneficiaries of federal money, paying far less in taxes than they receive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-dependent-government_n_5035877.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

Am I correct, or not? That's what you should concern yourself with

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

1). Our duty? Is that taught in Common Core? Do you also believe the Constitution doesn't limit the federal government? I suggest you read it as it's specific about taxation and the Constitutional limits on such. That it's been bastardized by laws that are indeed unconstitutional is part of the great tragedy that is progressive politics. When the Feds overtax the preople, it leaves less for the states. I'm sure, though, Common Core math doesn't really explain that well. As long as a state is made up of people and the Feds get their money from the people, they are taxing the states. Not rocket science.

Yep, states can raise taxes an the people, but surely you can see the outcome of that, right? Unless Common Core doesn't teach cause and effect.

I never said that offering incentives to the states wasn't held Constitutional. What I've said is that it is shameful at the very least. The rest of what you say about the Constitution and case law is garbage. Case law gets overturned all the time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

Am I correct, or not? That's what you should concern yourself with

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

Do you assume I am a religious Christian?

[Anonymous]

Do you assume I am a religious Christian?

They assume that anyone against CC is right wing conservative. They are seriously wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you assume I am a religious Christian?

They assume that anyone against CC is right wing conservative. They are seriously wrong.

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

[Anonymous]

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

Who says progressives do? The point is that homeschooling is something that progressives do. Because they don't want their children indoctrinated into being corporate consumer widgets.

[Anonymous]

Somehow I don't think it is the homeschoolers who are complaining on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

Who says progressives do? The point is that homeschooling is something that progressives do. Because they don't want their children indoctrinated into being corporate consumer widgets.

Obama likes home schooling? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? I think you don't understand what a progressive is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Obama likes home schooling? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? I think you don't understand what a progressive is.

If you think that Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are progressives, then I am 100% certain that you don't understand what a progressive is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

Huh? I'm a progressive, but not a teacher. So I'd never consider homeschooling. Not that I have anything against those that do it- to each their own.