Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash wrote:
This is the age old disagreement on the application of centuries old language to the world today.
"he former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."
To ensure peace and foreign trade in 2017, it is necessary that all states maintain some level of standardized education and that there be funding available to those seeking higher education (the lions share of the DOE).
Also I can pick pieces out of 85 articles to support my points too
The powers included in the THIRD class are those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States. Under this head might be included the particular restraints imposed on the authority of the States, and certain powers of the judicial department; but the former are reserved for a distinct class, and the latter will be particularly examined when we arrive at the structure and organization of the government.
We can have a reasonable discussion about this or you can continue being condescending, which would you prefer?
If you were referring to me with that last part, I apologize if I came off as condescending. That wasn't my intention.
That said, that is an
extremely taxed view of that passage. The concern of the founders, living under the Articles government, was that states, without a stronger federal system, would spiral apart and become separate nations. This was a legitimate concern given that states had their own currencies/distinct financial systems and were practically negotiating with foreign powers on their own. For a fledgling nation that didn't agree on much, there were real concerns about the unity of the union in the 1780's. That is almost certainly the intent behind statements about harmony and intercourse between states: economic and diplomatic harmony. It's such a stretch to argue that that would include things like education, as the states at the time
already had massively different educational systems and cultural backgrounds and they made such a fuss over keeping those distinct systems that Hamilton et al. had to write the Federalist Papers to convince them that the Feds weren't going to erase their states' identities.
In contrast, my passage wasn't "picked out," it is extremely representative of the writings and arguments made surrounding the constitution when it was debated and ratified. That is, in my view, unequivocally how the majority of the states viewed the constitution when they accepted it. This is held up by the debates in the states' legislatures.
You might have a point if the states would be teaching their students that the Union is evil, Texas should impose tarrifs on California, and that federal law men should be shot on sight. Those would probably be examples of things that would threaten federal unity. Things like creationism being taught in one state and evolution in another (which I will reiterate is not the primary motivation behind much criticism of the current system) don't even scratch the surface of the disparities that existed 200 years ago between states, yet those disparities weren't severe enough to be written into the Constitution or the Federalist Papers as problems. I fail to see how the concern you perceive in your passage rises above the concern I see in mine, which it would have to in order for your argument to make sense.
edit: typo
