Constitution Day-ooohhh the irony

[MaC]

Constitution Day – September 17
All federally funded schools and colleges are required to commemorate the anniversary of the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution.

Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia introduced the amendment (December, 2004) that was passed by both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The legislation requires that all education institutions that receive federal funds implement educational programs relating to the United States Constitution. Constitution Day is a celebration of the September 17, 1787 signing of the United States Constitution. When September 17 falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, however, Constitution Day may be celebrated the preceding or following week.

Constitution Day is intended to provide students with increased awareness and appreciation of this important document of freedom.


Alright, so Robert Byrd introduced this bill to require educational institutions to celebrate Constitution day, which since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution it's unConstitutional.  Okay, yep, genius.

[12th Doctor]

I know.  I have to do a presentation for the school.    We will get a huge crowd, I'm sure. 

[Protect Trans Hoosiers]

Sheesh.  That overbearing, authoritarian federal government, requiring public schools to teach children important history.  Might as well be shipping small children and puppies to the gulag, because you know that's the next logical step.

[ATFFL]

Alright, so Robert Byrd introduced this bill to require educational institutions to celebrate Constitution day, which since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution it's unConstitutional.  Okay, yep, genius.

This is just patently false.  Do you refuse to celebrate any national holidays since they are not mentioned in the Constitution?

[Platypus]

I won't go in depth here, but America needs a new constitution. In can be based on the original, and the amendments, but at its CORE it must have a section allowing for cumpulsory memorials of historical events.

And a committment to some form of universal health care.

And the abolition of the death penalty, although I think 'cruel and unusual punishments' already applies

And free orange juice to lactose-intolerant kids in schools.

Oh, and it has to madate that martinis shall never be served with olives unless specifically requested.

BTW, is breathing mentioned in the constitution? You'd better not breath, MaC, just in case. Hancock wouldn't be impressed unless your face was blue.

[MaC]

my point is that "where in the Constitution does it say that you have to teach Constitution Day?"

I, by no means have a problem with schools that will voluntarily teach this.  However I find that the premise of this bill is to undermine the Constitution by coercively putting it into the public school agenda.  Why even have a Constitution Day if we're going to do this?

Am I the only one who sees this as ironic?

[Jake]

And here we see why the LP will never have a chance at winning an election.

[A18]

Great topic. The amendment is blatantly unconstitutional, and you can blame it on FDR and Wilson, like most other problems with this country.

[Emsworth]

my point is that "where in the Constitution does it say that you have to teach Constitution Day?"

I, by no means have a problem with schools that will voluntarily teach this.  However I find that the premise of this bill is to undermine the Constitution by coercively putting it into the public school agenda.  Why even have a Constitution Day if we're going to do this?

The Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole that the federal government can impose requirements on state institutions for the receipt of federal funding. These requirements are supposed to be authorized by the spending clause (Article I, Section 1, Clause 1), which allows Congress to spend for the "general welfare." According to this argument, providing funds to states that do or do not do certain things promotes the "general welfare," and is therefore constitutional.

Schools are not required to teach Constitution Day; rather, if they do not teach it, they will not receive federal funds. There is no coercion here, and, if we accept the validity of Dole, no constitutional issue. Now, we can argue about the validity of that ruling, but that's a wholly different issue.

[A18]

Dole was a terrible ruling. Congress is entitled to attach some conditions to federal funds, sure, but they must be reasonably related to their expenditure.

[Emsworth]

Dole was a terrible ruling. Congress is entitled to attach some conditions to federal funds, sure, but they must be reasonably related to their expenditure.

I would disagree with your conclusion. The spending clause includes the broad power to spend to promote the "general welfare." As long as a condition to federal funding ultimately promotes the general welfare, I believe that it is constitutional. (Of course, exceptions apply where the condition violates some other independent constitutional provision.)

Nothing in the plain text of the Constitution seems to require that the condition be relevant; rather, the only requirement appears to be that the condition promote the general welfare. The germaneness of the condition is not a legal question for a court, but only a political question, fully outside the scope of the judicial power.

In any event, in Dole, all nine Justices appeared to accept that Congress could impose conditions, as long as they promoted the general welfare and did not independently violate other constitutional provisions. The two dissents in Dole were not over this premise, but over whether the federal law in question (which related to the drinking age) did violate an independent constitutional provision: the 21st Amendment.

[A18]

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, dissenting.

The Court today upholds the National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment, 23 U.S.C. 158 (1982 ed., Supp. III), as a valid exercise of the spending power conferred by Article I, 8. But 158 is not a condition on spending reasonably related to the expenditure of federal funds and cannot be justified on that ground. Rather, it is an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor, an attempt that lies outside Congress' power to regulate commerce because it falls within the ambit of 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.

...

The immense size and power of the Government of the United States ought not obscure its fundamental character. It remains a Government of enumerated powers. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). Because 23 U.S.C. 158 (1982 ed., Supp. III) cannot be justified as an exercise of any power delegated to the Congress, it is not authorized by the Constitution. The Court errs in holding it to be the law of the land, and I respectfully dissent.

[Emsworth]

The Court today upholds the National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment, 23 U.S.C. 158 (1982 ed., Supp. III), as a valid exercise of the spending power conferred by Article I, 8. But 158 is not a condition on spending reasonably related to the expenditure of federal funds and cannot be justified on that ground. Rather, it is an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor, an attempt that lies outside Congress' power to regulate commerce because it falls within the ambit of 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.

O'Connor is basically arguing that the purpose of the condition was not to promote the general welfare, but rather to regulate something over which the states have authority under the Twenty-First Amendment. Thus, the primary question O'Connor addresses seems to be whether an independent constitutional provision is violated, rather than whether the spending clause itself is violated.

Had it been up to me, I would probably have ruled differently in Dole, simply because the condition in question (which relates to the drinking age) does not necessarily fall under promoting the general welfare. To paraphrase Hamilton, this is not general, as distinguished from local, welfare. Thus, I would find that law unconstitutional not on the broad and weak grounds that Congress cannot impose non-germane conditions, but rather on the more narrow and possibly strong grounds that the condition fails to promote the general welfare.

[Brandon H]

Maybe everyone in school will learn about all of the unConstitutional actions going on in the Government today.

[A18]

Quoting from the same opinion: We have repeatedly said that Congress may condition grants under the spending power only in ways reasonably related to the purpose of the federal program.

The requirement would have to be incident to the actual spending, unless some other enumerated power justifies it.

[Emsworth]

The requirement would have to be incident to the actual spending, unless some other enumerated power justifies it.

In general, I might tend to agree: when Congress attempts to influence state laws by restricting access to federal funds, then it generally moves from promoting the general welfare to controlling matters purely local in nature. In many cases, in fact, the original spending itself does not promote the general, as opposed to local, welfare. Most education spending is of this kind.

However, I do not find any provision in the Constitution that absolutely requires the condition to be relevant to the spending in question. What is the constitutional justification for this assertion (aside from mere precedent)?

[MaC]

And here we see why the LP will never have a chance at winning an election.

it's not my fault the schools don't teach the Constitution the correct way.  Although your statement makes no sense anyways.  Arguing with you is like arguing with opebo.