Public education is only one glaring example of why we need the 10th Amendment

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

A local (really good) blog, Holly on the Hill, ran a piece two days ago about Utah’s 10th Amendment rights.  Among the replies were some progressive thinkers not entirely enthusiastic about the efforts under way to restore Utah sovereignty (shock).  One, who goes by initials JBT, asked the following;

I am asking the conservative readers of this blog to share with myself and others specific examples of how the federal government has encroached upon their rights as an individual.

Remember the operative words here are “SPECIFIC” and “INDIVIDUAL”. Vague and generalized statements are not on topic and don’t belong in this discussion.

Today another replier, Jacob, stated the following;

I would say the silence is deafening.

Some in our movement just cannot seem to walk away from such challenges even though the headache received from banging one’s head against the progressive wall is well known.   I won’t say who the person was that replied but next time I see him in the mirror I will remind him how little good this often does.   However, JBT did manage to help remind me of why our efforts are so important and I think you may pick up on that in what I wrote.  Here is what I felt (yep, replied with feelings, another mistake):

“It is quiet, I would venture to say most conservative readers are not willing to invest time and energy to once again attempt to explain why our country was built, successfully, on the notion of personal responsibility and self-government at the lowest level.  Also, it would appear many are weary of those who embrace more federal authority over local authority; those who believe states are more vicious than D.C.; those who believe our lives are better when entitlement is mandated from the highest level instead of under the designs of the U.S. Constitution.  It may simply be there are so many more important things to invest time in than a question on specifics, with a caveat on ‘their’ when it is all citizens, since there are too many tangled ways mandating from the highest to the lowest has drained resources and impacted lives.  However, this would constitute vague, generalized statements I suppose so let us turn to a more specific.

Education is in the local news as we are once again short of money and cutting education as a means to balance the budget.  500 jobs lost in a school system that has a growing demand for teachers based on population growth.  Since federal intervention began in the late 1940s and the Department of Education was given to us under Pres. Carter in the 70′s, spending on education has drastically increased while scholastic success has decreased.   (Let us not bother with the vague fact education is not a federal duty but a state duty or, depending on each states’ constitution, perhaps an individual duty according the federal rules under the Constitution and 10th Amendment, that will simply muddy the reply.  Also, we won’t bother splitting hairs between rights and privileges, that would not fit within the replies rules. )  Since schools were still struggling while students’ scholastic scores steadily declined, and there was far more money being spent it would seem likely someone might consider the size and cost of the now ever-growing federal bureaucracy wasting dollars our teachers and students could be using for education as a potential problem but that was not the answer federal level politicians embraced.

Pres. Bush had a much better idea, more federal interference with the ‘No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)’ added on top of the already over expanded list of ‘programs’ that would benefit my grand children’s education.  (Of course this additional multi-billion dollar program has some good ideas in it (along with bad), the problem with these federal programs is not that some ideas are not good it is they are too expensive, too poorly managed, and too generalized which is precisely why education would be better served at the lowest level where the resources are obtained anyway. )

One key area created was the funding gap between what the act promises to pay and what is budgeted to be paid, a gap that leaves states with the tab on yet another program federally mandated (I have no idea why we are once again cutting education, do you?)  Whoops, still this is generalized because it impacts all children subjected to federal oversight of the NEA whose motto is “Great Public Schools for Every Child,” and every is general.

Let’s get more individual and specific.  Teaching is a passion for people, our daughter shared the passion, loving the children as they grow and learn in her classes.  NCLBA requires a tremendous amount of paperwork (among other things) so to fulfill the federal reporting requirements it was decided, at her school, teachers would teach one less class period so they could stay on top of the administration of NCLBA (as the district cannot afford to hire more administrators since there are already too many of them trying to keep up with DOE and state demands as it is) and other paperwork requirements.  Class size at the time was roughly 1 to 18 in her classes.  Since one less class was being taught and there were no additional teachers (couldn’t afford that with the dag~nab pesky funding gap) class sizes had to be increased to nearly 1 to 30.  Students get less attention but are tested more often on the knowledge they should (according to our fed) be learning in the now larger sizes.  Classroom management challenges naturally increase with the additional students.  Less classes taught mean less time spent where her heart is and more time spent pushing additional paperwork (not working on lesson plans and fun things that benefit the learning environment) which means less incentive to stay in a profession she is very good in and loved at one time so deeply.   Students, in the meantime, have less personal attention and when struggling are not afforded the necessary time they were use to previously.

I know, it didn’t impact me directly…just my children and grandchildren, but I served this country to protect their future life, liberty and ability to pursue happiness.  The federal mandates, with their demands and funding gaps, drain state, local, and personal resources.  Even though our children are grown and gone from our home we pay more than ever in taxes to fund schools that still don’t have enough funding.  It is not that you and I cannot afford to give our children quality education with wonderful teachers.  It is that the money we should be using for that is being sucked to the highest, least competent (Constitutionally) level of government and we lose though you will no doubt believe we somehow gain and would be somehow worse off if the federal encroachment were not a part of our daily education.

I for one wish the states would have stood in the way of the federal encroachments of the 1940s, 60s, 70s, and 2000s but they failed in their 10th Amendment duties then.  Our education system would be flourishing under local, parental competency because we would control it as we were to do under the concept of a Federalist Republic.  If it were not flourishing we would be able to see more clearly where the challenges were instead of looking through tangles of federal bureaucratic growth.  (Oh my gosh, I think you are smart enough to help??  Yes, I do.)  I, for one, will demand today we dutifully stand  for all efforts surrounding the restoration of a localized, personal responsibility based system of government.  Nationalized programs don’t work.  The war on poverty has failed.  The war on drugs has failed.  Federal mandates have not improved states but have drained them of resources we need.  But, those are vague, generalized statements and I have invested far too much time with this reply.”

Gary Wood is the Educational Advisor for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. Co-founder of the Heritage Training Center, focused on helping end constitutional illiteracy. With 35 years of devoted study of our Constitution his desire is to help others rediscover the inspiring heritage of the United States. Radio show host, training officer, lifetime member of the VFW and most importantly Grandpa.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Support the Tenth Amendment Center!

7 Responses to “Public education is only one glaring example of why we need the 10th Amendment”

  1. Freedom says:

    Actually there was never suppose to be a income tax. the federal government is suppose to levy a direct tax on the state and then the state is to determine the the constitutionality of the laws being passed and then release funding only for those deemed constitutional…you got love when the sheep speak up.

  2. Tim says:

    I would have said that the federal authority is encroaching on my rights of a citizen of this state because when I vote for an opposite policy of the federal government it is essentially neatralized by federal authority. That destroys my vote, civic participation, and renders all local laws that I have a direct say in useless. The federal government needs to realize that there are enough local laws to keep the peace and be the government that people want.

  3. The question didn't ask what was Constitutional or not, it asked how the gov has encroached upon individual rights. I agree, and in fact, made the argument the other day in another posting, that the 16th Amendment is a valid part of the Constitution. But it is an amendment, not a part of the original framework, and thus, can be validly seen as a specific encroachment upon individuals, just as the original question stated. Most of what I stated can be seen as a part of "happiness", but we don't have the right to happiness, nor do we have the right to pursue our happiness by forcefully taking it from others, just the right to pursue it for ourselves.

    I don't disagree with some of how the money is spent, but I do disagree with how a lot of how it is spent, and b/c the amendment itself can be viewed as a specific, individual, encroachment, so can any results of that amendment.

    I do not agree that it's my responsibility to help provide for anyone's retirement unless I personally, directly choose to do so, as I do with my own grandmother. As such, I don't believe it's anyone else's responsibility to help provide for my retirement.

    I do agree with providing a "safety net" for those who are mentally or physically incapable of providing for themselves, and as such, I enjoy donating, when I can, to charities which help the disabled. I don't agree with providing anything to those who can't provide for themselves b/c of their own poor decisions, and as such, my wife and I both agreed to allow her parents to become homeless, in-spite of our fortunate ability to be able to provide for them. They chose to quit school, and they chose to use drugs knowing their workplaces did drug testing. They get to live with the natural consequences of their own actions.

  4. Jacob says:

    You have no Constitutional right to not pay taxes. In fact, the Constitution directly requires that you pay taxes, therefore your Constitutional rights have not been infringed. You may find some uses of your tax money unpalatable, and if so your recourse is political, not Constitutional. As a society we've decided that providing a comfortable retirement, a free public education system, a safety net for the poor, etc. to be useful and necessary. I'm not saying the government spends all our money wisely, it could certainly use some amelioration, but none of this rises to the level of Constitutional harm.

  5. I would have responded:
    I'm required to help fund the retirements of others who weren't responsible enough to take care of themselves.

    I'm required to help fund an education system which I do not believe in and my own children do not participate in.

    I'm required to help provide food and housing to people who voluntarily quit the education system I help fund and either struggle to provide for themselves, or simply choose to live off the work of others.

    I'm required to provide salaries and benefits to countless government workers; salaries and benefits which are far beyond what I received as an active member of the U.S. Navy.

    I'm required to pay interest on a debt which I did not directly incur upon myself and do not believe was justly incurred by the government I live under.

    I'm forced, reluctantly, to purchase goods for my home and family that were manufactured in other countries because of unConstitutional regulations which make the American workforce unable to compete.

    And now:
    I'm required to help pay the mortgages of other people who did not choose wisely, as I did, to buy a home with payments well below their monthly income.

    I'm required to own stock in companies whose leadership failed to run their businesses in a responsible and efficient manner.

  6. I would have responded:
    I'm required to help fund the retirements of others who weren't responsible enough to take care of themselves.

    I'm required to help fund an education system which I do not believe in and my own children do not participate in.

    I'm required to help provide food and housing to people who voluntarily quit the education system I help fund and either struggle to provide for themselves, or simply choose to live off the work of others.

    I'm required to provide salaries and benefits to countless government workers; salaries and benefits which are far beyond what I received as an active member of the U.S. Navy.

    I'm required to pay interest on a debt which I did not directly incur upon myself and do not believe was justly incurred by the government I live under.

    I'm forced, reluctantly, to purchase goods for my home and family that were manufactured in other countries because of unConstitutional regulations which make the American workforce unable to compete.

    And now:
    I'm required to help pay the mortgages of other people who did not choose wisely, as I did, to buy a home with payments well below their monthly income.

    I'm required to own stock in companies whose leadership failed to run their businesses in a responsible and efficient manner.

Leave a Reply