|
Title: Constitution? What Constitution? Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 01, 2008, 03:59:54 PM Is something wrong with the constitution?
Quote The Constitution was devised and ratified as the pre-eminent document upon which all U.S. Law and Equity resides. The Supreme Court was established as a separate branch of government and vested with the authority to adjudicate all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution. So, the issue before the Court is fundamental to the Constitutional framework and national integrity. Quote For those who have not bothered to pay attention, Mr. Obama has gone on record that he is not satisfied with the Constitution when he declared that the Founders failed to spell out the responsibly of the Federal Government but rather limited the role thereof. From his remark, it is evident that Obama was aware of the Tenth Article of Amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But evidently he failed to read the Preamble which states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Or if he read it, in his mind did not vest it with any authority. Would that form the basis of selective governance, or capricious, or arbitrary, or dictatorial? Quote Judging from their respective and separate remarks, if Mr. Obama and Chavez of Venezuela had their way, the U.S. would adopt a new Constitution more to their liking; or maybe not have one. What a novel thought and scary as hell. http://newsblaze.com/story/20081201121739zzzz.nb/topstory.html (http://newsblaze.com/story/20081201121739zzzz.nb/topstory.html) What is wrong with the constitution we have? Why do schools fail? Why do communities fail to adequately fund their schools? Is it because they care about children? Or, that they fail to provide adequate funds for public education? Why do parents fail to feed their children breakfast before sending them to school? Why has feeding children breakfast become the job of school teachers? Will building more expensive schools ensure that children eat breakfast before leaving their home? Will it ensure that children learn? Will it ensure that their home environment is conducive to learning? I don't think there is anything wrong with the constitution. If someone lives in an area with failing schools, are they asking why? What can I do to fix the schools? What can I do to ensure that other peoples children eat properly for breakfast and all day long? When are parents responsible for their children? Why should all taxpayers responsible for local schools that fail? There are some things big government should do and some things it should not. I think the person/people/community closest to the problem with should address the. Local schools should remain the responsibility of the local community. The constitution is just fine. Bigger is better doesn't seem to be working for GM, and I don't think it's working for the US. If programs don't work, fix them or ditch them. No one can do everything, everyone can do something. What did the founders intend for the federal government? Stick to the basics. I think there are good reasons the founders did not want the federal government to micromanage the lives of citizens. just my humble opinions Title: Re: Constitution? What Constitution? Post by: crazybabyborg on December 02, 2008, 02:11:25 AM Well, it's just my opinion, but I taught school for a couple of years after my undergraduate degree, and there are some very simple things we could easily do to empower parents to be more responsible for their kids, and improve the quality of education for American kids. Nothing is ever going to be really fixed until there is no tenure or teacher's union. Devoted teachers shouldn't fear that prospect, because IMO, teacher salaries should also go up in direct measure to the loss of receiving totally nonperformance based salaries.
1. I believe that parents should receive the "per student" funding supplied by their states and federal monies. I believe that parents should be able to CHOOSE which school their child attends. The immediate results of that would be schools competing for students. Suddenly, test scores, attendance, degrees of grade improvement, graduation percentages, safety, and course enrichments matter to the schools because they are selling points to parents. I think that it would also encourage normally passive parents to think rather than just accept the required attendance at a particular school because of physical districting. 2. I believe that teachers should be evaluated along with their students. It would be unfair to evaluate a teacher strictly on student national performance. However, a teacher could be fairly evaluated based on the progress a student makes within his or her class over the course of a year. A kid can come in really behind but make significant progress under a teacher and still end up behind grade level. Under those circumstances, the teacher has still done a great job with that student. Teachers who consistently perform in a manner that exhibits real progress with their group of students above the average progress made should be financially rewarded. 3. The single biggest factor proven over and over again to increase test scores is to reduce student/teacher ratios. 4. All states have grade curriculums. They are designed to incrementally define the skills to be taught in each grade and they build on learned skills from year to year, ex: first graders learn to add and subtract single digits, second graders learn to "borrow" in subtraction with 4 place numbers, third graders learn multiplication, etc. I believe that many students falter because they "miss" a concept that plagues and frustrate them forever because reading, writing, and arithmetic are truly dependent upon skill building. It's hard to put a roof on a house without a foundation. Therefore, I honestly believe that we should throw grade levels out the window and simply adopt the curriculum that runs through grades 1 though 12. Successful passage of a comprehensive proficiency test should determine when a child moves to the next skill. There's so many benefits to this for both the struggling student and the gifted. Oh, there's more, but I'll end this post with pointing out that the changes I've listed here do not involve digging deeply in the taxpayer's pockets. It's a better idea. There are so many things we could do to revolutionize our education system and we never do. The rich continue to send their kids to private schools where many of the ideas here are already instituted, and the rest of us send our kids to where the government says they should go, and the teacher's union says the teacher is doing a good job. If we focus on the kids, we'll get it right. |