A Fight for Our Children’s Minds
by John William Kurowski

SEMINOLE / ACRS -- The President of the United States has indicated in a speech that he embraces the concept of “democracy”, and also asserts he supports “local” control of public education. The Founding Fathers likewise believed in “local control“, but feared “democracy”, and did not provide the President or Congress with any power whatsoever, to meddle in State constitutionally authorized public education. Continued Below...


Conservative Monitor
On the web since 1997

August 2001 | Blog | Book Reviews | Archives: Opinion | Finance | Society | Letters | Humor

coverThe Federalist Papers, by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Articles published by the founding fathers explaining the workings behind the constitution.
ConservativeBookstore.com



Conservative Book of the Week!

Add this site to
Your list of
Favorites.

Links
Maryland’s Constitution, for example, provides the constitutional wording for a mandated local control: “The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.” [Article VIII ]. The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic terms: [Art.4, Declaration of Rights], “…the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.” And, under Art. 3, the idea of a mandated local control is again restated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.”. This very provision of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States in their ratification of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States!

So, why has the President stated he is in favor of “local control“, if he is really in favor of Congress’ involvement through an unconstitutionally authorized federal education plan?

Why not close down the U.S. Department of Education, Mr. President, if you are really in favor of local control? Are you unaware that Lawrence Uzzell, special Assistant to the Undersecretary of the Department of Education during the Reagan Administration, revealed, as documented by Mr. Ronald L. Trowbridge, vice president for external programs and communications at Hillsdale College (see BACK TO SKOOL DEVIL'S DEAL) that ‘the Department of Education regulation-writers openly dictate to schools. The department enforces a total of more than 1,000 pages of fine-print laws and regulations.’

The folks in Washington, D.C. have long had the power to exercise "...exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" [see Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, U.S. CONST.] over the District of Columbia school system, and also has had almost unlimited resources to create a model educational system for the states to follow, and the result of the grant of such unlimited power is an admitted tragedy to say the least!

Why does the President want to spread this same arrangement to each of the United States, and have Congress act as an overseer in the disbursement of revenue by regulation? Surely, if taxpayer funds are available in the federal treasury to be handed out by the President to assist in the necessary expenses of locally operated schools, why not simply reduce taxes by the needed amount, and leave these needed resources within the various states without first transferring them from the states to Washington, D.C. to feed those holding Department of Education "plum jobs", and then returning a fraction of this money back to the States under the heading of a "federal education plan" --- a plan cleverly providing a court-approved-means [the power of the purse] necessary for an eventual federal take over of all local schools involved in such a plan? (see GROVE CITY COLLEGE v. BELL, 465 U.S. 555 and NORTH HAVEN BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BELL, 456 U.S. 512 -1982.)

The fact is, the President’s plan unwittingly assists those engaged in the subjugation of our constitutional limited republic, and especially plays into the hands of an identifiable group favoring “democracy” over our constitutional limited republic, who now seem to be entering the final stages of a very long and calculated fight - a fight to gain control over the minds of America’s children and complete the illusion of our system being a representative “democracy” - a system in which folks in government would then be set free to impose their will upon the people without the restraints of a constitutional limited republic. Democracy can best be described as mob-rule government, very different from our Constitutional limited Republic...our constitution being designed to protect local control of the peoples affairs, the individual and property rights. Democracy inevitably yields to mob-rule feeling and group theft!

Let us remember once again, our system is not a democracy nor intended to be a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited Republic, protected by Art. IV , Sec. 4, United States Constitution, and, the fear of democracy by many of the founders, was aptly stated by John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary: "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

God save us from the pending demise of our once honorable constitutional limited republic!

Article Courtesy of: American Constitutional Research Service 727 391-1187 P.O. Box 4474 Seminole, FL 33775

Published by permission.


Contact Us