The new U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan seems like a good guy who means well, but he's pretty scary. He's this month's NRA cover boy for Obama's anti-gun administration -- following such well-known gun rights foes as Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Obama himself -- and for good reason: he's been at the forefront of the battle to ban handguns in Illinois, "for the children."
Indeed, he asserted recently that it is an "undeniable fact that guns and kids don't mix." That our society does not "[value] children more than it values violent rituals and traditions that might have been at home in a frontier society two centuries ago but make absolutely no sense today."
That for those people who disagreed, he will "fight them in Springfield ... in the courts ... in the community ... and even in the home." (He didn't explain just how he wanted to fight me in my home over my choices with my guns and my kids.)
But it gets worse. Now, as Secretary of Education, he has unprecedented authority to spend money. The Secretary's discretionary money -- that he can spend in literally any way he sees fit -- is $5 billion, more than the entire budget of the Department of Education 35 years ago.
And he makes no bones about his intent to use that power to push his own agenda:
ARNE DUNCAN: I think Washington has an extraordinarily important role to play, maybe more so than ever before. But I would argue states have to behave in very, very different ways, and they have a critically important role.
I think there can't be one power center. I think we all have to work together, collaboratively in very different ways to get where we need to go.
JOHN MERROW: But you are going to be writing the checks. That's power.
ARNE DUNCAN: You see it as power; I see it as partnership.
JOHN MERROW: Do we need national standards?
ARNE DUNCAN: I think we need to look at it. I think the idea of 50 states doing things, you know, their own way doesn't quite make sense.
JOHN MERROW: Do you anticipate using some of this stimulus money, this incentive money to help these national standards emerge?
ARNE DUNCAN: Absolutely.
JOHN MERROW: So states will get money if they do this thing that Duncan wants?
ARNE DUNCAN: If you play by these rules, absolutely right.
Some "partnership." He'll push a single national standard for education and if you go along you'll get money. (Raise your hand if you don't think this will include his social agenda, including his anti-gun agenda.)
Of course, even apart from the social agenda, national standards for education make almost no sense. There's little serious interest in Seattle and Everett having the same standards, let alone Seattle and Atlanta.
Duncan wants control. This implies we need him and Obama and the rest of the crowd in Washington D.C. to control us. We don't. And we don't need his money so much that we should sacrifice our liberty and the best interests of our children to get it.
(And yes, this is exactly what I mean when I use the term "socialism.")
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 18, 2009 06:44 PM | Email ThisJoe Biden has a strong anti-gun record, 2008 campaign notwithstanding, and has claimed credit for originating the "assault weapon" ban. And Gil K spent a lot of time pushing for gun-control as SPD chief, even though he knew he would never get it. I remember Rahm Emanuel as the guy in the Clinton admin who bragged “We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”.
I don't know exactly what it all means, but it is a striking thing about this new admin.
Posted by: travis t on March 18, 2009 08:24 PMevery flaming liberal actor is a hero gun-a-blazing guy/gal in an super action movie; with a cadre of gun-toting bodyguards & security that YOUR mom or dad or grandma does NOT have on Main Street against muggers and shytheads;
ok--de-gun the lib elite too--& their bodyguards--and give them long pointy-sticks; then--i'll play along too;
until then, good for the ordinary taxpayer goose, good for the elitist gander;
legislators take care of their own--i suggest the unwashed masses do the same...after all, libs always promote the "level playing field," right? "fairness" cuts both ways...
Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on March 18, 2009 08:35 PMThen obviously you haven't a clue what socialism means, but prefer to use the term for every government policy that you disagree with. That's as silly as using terms like "progressive" and "secular" as all-purpose put-downs. Socialism has to do with the ownership of industry, and furthermore, it has nothing to do with the distinction between various government entities.
Posted by: Bruce on March 18, 2009 09:57 PMBruce: no, the definition I use has been in widespread use for at least 150 years -- proof that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about -- and contrary to your defamatory and unsubstantiatable claim, it is not "every government policy I disagree with," but those that are geared toward using the power of government to shape society, usually by taking away liberty or giving preferential treatment.
I only included that line at the end, Bruce, because many liberals like you pretend that socialism has only one meaning, and that you get to decide what it is. You know, discourse works best when you try to understand the other side. My use is perfectly valid. You're wrong.
Btw, Obama was named National Gun Salesman of the Year.
Indeed.
That is what disarming the Citizenry is all about. The Government wants the People to be defenseless so they can do whatever they want and no longer need to fear the People rising up against them. Such a Deal!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/album.php?aid=79432&id=695695806
You know, discourse works best when you try to understand the other side. My use is perfectly valid. You're wrong.
But Pudge, you don't understand! The typical Marxist KNOWS they're right, there's no need to listen to the other side or consider other viewpoints. They only mean you should be open minded when considering their one true belief!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 19, 2009 01:10 AMask the southern border states how THEY feel---MSM are silent about the kidnappings on US soil and incursions onto our land by illegals and dopers;
I'd feel safer with Inspector Clouseau;
Posted by: jimmie howya doin on March 19, 2009 03:54 AMAnd as pudge correctly pointed out Arne Duncan isn't alone on this issue: Even if the most powerful people in the Obama Administration including the President are usually careful to speak at least somewhat in code words when dealing with the 2nd Amendment, you can bet they feel completely comfortable with the statement pudge quoted:
''.... our society .... values violent rituals and traditions that might have been at home in a frontier society two centuries ago but make absolutely no sense today.''
''Violent rituals and traditions ??...''
The contempt for the 2nd Amendment contained in that statement is boundless.
Fortunately even though the (D)s are close to the magic 60 majority in the US Senate, as long as there are members like Baucus and Tester from states like Montana, I don't see much chance yet for fundamental and pervasive violations of the right to keep and bear arms to be formally legislated (like the recent wholesale confiscation of handguns in Australia, for example). Plus the recent reaffirmation by the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right was important. The immediate danger is continual chipping away at the edges; and especially the use of Federal funding as a club to compell ''voluntary'' compliance with ''Federal guidlines'', etcetera.
And WRT kids and guns not ''mixing'':
I and most of the guys I grew up with in the farming country of ND got our first .22 single shot rifles when we were about 6 years old; and 12-gauge pump shotguns a few years after that. Not a SINGLE kid I knew or heard of in our County was ever accidentially let alone deliberately shot with a firearm during the time I was in grades 1 thru 12; even though everybody had guns and kept them with them in their cars and pickups all the time. In light of which I would say:
Since a large number of children are tragically killed each year in auto accidents, I guess cars and kids don't mix. So Arne Duncan is probably in favor of banning private cars, right ??... Makes more sense, if you look at the auto fatality and injury numbers.... oops: I should be careful here: Private cars and the freedom to travel with same might indeed be considered vestiges of an outdated frontier society by many in this Administration; and they'll likely be wanting to restrict us to public transportation as much and as soon as possible....
Posted by: Methow Ken on March 19, 2009 05:24 AMI will never vote for anyone who votes for this.
Posted by: DopioLover on March 19, 2009 08:01 AMNot that any of this is really relevant to whether gun control is constitutional (which of course you know better than the Supreme Court) or good policy (which of course you know better than anyone). You have made it clear that no one and no facts will persuade you on those points. You can claim everyone else is stupid, pudge, but then you can't also say that your unique wisdom is "widespread".
Posted by: Bruce on March 19, 2009 08:07 AMI am also curious what you mean by "rightly (albeit ethically questionable) earned money".
Posted by: Bruce on March 19, 2009 08:15 AMYes, it does.
it talks about plunder mostly in an economic sense
So do I. Read again.
doesn't deal with your complaint about one government agency (the one currently led by Democrats) pushing around another government agency
That is completely irrelevant to my use of the term "socialism." It is about the control via the money that I am referring. That this control happened to be over our state governments instead of us individually is unimportant.
in no way does this definition have "widespread use" as you claim.
Yes, it absolutely does. EVERY DAY many liberals are telling many conservatives they use the word "socialism" incorrectly, and overwhelmingly most of the time, those conservatives are using the word the same way Bastiat and I use it.
Not that any of this is really relevant to whether gun control is constitutional (which of course you know better than the Supreme Court)
I never addressed "gun control" or the constitutionality of it in my post, so it's irrelevant. What I did imply -- though not address specifically -- is that BANNING guns is unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court agreed with, and is going to soon incorporate to the states as well.
or good policy (which of course you know better than anyone)
If it is unconstitutional, it's irrelevant how good you think the policy is.
You have made it clear that no one and no facts will persuade you on those points.
You're a liar. I made no such thing clear. I won't be persuaded by your rhetoric, but facts? Sure. Present some facts that Duncan does not want to ban guns. Provide some facts that banning guns is not unconstitutional. Provide some facts that my assertions about the word "socialism" are incorrect. Provide some facts that Duncan won't use his power to push his agenda, which includes banning guns. Provide some facts that state education standards don't "make sense."
You have no counterfacts. You lie by implying you do.
You can claim everyone else is stupid, pudge
And you can put words in my mouth! More lies from Bruce.
And please, you and DopioLover, take the off-topic discussion somewhere where it's more on-topic.
Or, it will be 1994 redux.
Posted by: Kato on March 19, 2009 08:56 AMDuncan will fit into this administration very well. Not only does he qualify as an anti-2nd amendment type, he also is opposed to the notion of federalism and supports bilingual education. Not a very promising secretary for the USA, but a perfect one for the group that hungers after controlling all aspects of our lives.
Duncan's opposition to the 2nd Amendment will probably take the form of forcing gun grabber propaganda onto school districts. That is scary enough. But there is more to be frightened about from this guy.
What deeply frightens me is that he and his cronies are so arrogant as to believe the Federal government has the intelligence and wisdom to dictate education policy to everyone. With this kind of attitude, truly horrific fantasies about education--bilingual education comes to mind right away--could be imposed top down upon the entire country by a committed group of ideologues.
I think we need more than one simple issue to force a recurrance of 1994 again. IMHO, the country needs for the GOP and blue dogs to adopt an updated Contract with America.
One of the great points about the Contract was that the GOP promised to force Congress to adhere to the same laws that applied to the rest of us.
In the same spirit, I propose that one of the new Contract points be that elected and confirmed federal leaders be subject to the same tax laws as the rest of us. To prove that, I would suggest that all of them be subject to an initial one-time IRA audit of their taxes with the results published.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 19, 2009 09:10 AMThat's not to say it does not bring some usefulness to it. I know quite a bit of French and some Greek, and I don't find myself worse off for knowing them. But I do think I could have found a better use for my time than learning French. I'll keep the Greek though. And the point is, this is a debatable subject and LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS should make that choice. If not them, then the state. No reason for the federalis to do it.
Posted by: pudge on March 19, 2009 09:19 AMThey are everything I and others have said they are.
They are controlling, nasty, thought police who take their greatest pleasure in telling other people how to live. That's the kind of people they are. It's why they are liberal Democrats.
They want to control gun ownership "for the children". Gosh isn't that a big surprise?
If liberals were actually concerned about "the children" 40% of children would not be born out of wedlock,(this cheery new statistic is just out today). Oh, but the destruction of the family has also been another longtime liberal goal, hasn't it?
Some Republicans think we should be more like the Democrats. I think that is insane.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 19, 2009 09:48 AMI agree, it will take more than one issue. However, after the '94 election even Bill Clinton credited the gun issue with the loss of some 30 out of the 50+ seats that the D's lost that year.
With the fumbled and failing Obama economic policies, and with ideas like making war vets pay their own health care for battle wounds, we are going to have an abundance of issues on which to run in '10.
Posted by: Kato on March 19, 2009 09:59 AMNearly all competitive universities require second-language education. Public high schools should have those programs available so students can get into the colleges they want to.
The Department of Education is controlled by the unitary executive, i.e. President Obama. The American people elected Obama into office so it follows that they support his domestic agenda -- such as funding second-language programs. If the people do not support such policies they should elect a different unitary executive.
One thing that the DoE doesn't do, though, is talk abut gun control. It would be absurd to tie any funds to the teaching of a political agenda, and that is not happening. Perhaps someone who is for gun control is a fine educator. Perhaps political diversity is acceptable in this country.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 11:36 AMSince when does "interest" dictate "good policy"? Finishing the 9th grade or graduating high school should mean something, otherwise students who transfer will be at a significant disadvantage and colleges will have to waste valuable time on high school teaching. Or worse, only those who go to schools in Bellevue get accepted to college causing disparity. That's bad our economic future.
No one is suggesting standardized lesson plans. But just saying "it doesn't make sense" isn't a real concrete analysis of an obviously deep and complex issue.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 11:47 AMWell, in conjunction with the state, yes. But you apparently missed the part where Duncan said he wants to have national education standards. He does not WANT the local district or state to make these decisions.
The American people elected Obama into office so it follows that they support his domestic agenda -- such as funding second-language programs.
First, no, this should be a legislative decision, not an executive one, if it is a decision at all. Second, it's quite clear that federal spending on general public education is unconstitutional, as per the Tenth Amendment.
One thing that the DoE doesn't do, though, is talk abut gun control.
For now. We know he did this as head of the public schools in Chicago.
It would be absurd to tie any funds to the teaching of a political agenda
Yes. But it happens. For example, federal funds tied to abstinence sex ed.
Perhaps someone who is for gun control is a fine educator. Perhaps political diversity is acceptable in this country.
Perhaps I'd like people who actually respect the Constitution to be in positions of authority in the federal government.
It would be "absurd" to think that something so close to Duncan's heart, that he worked on as head of the Chicago schools, he will NOT work on as head of the U.S. Dept. of Education. Especially when that agenda is perfectly in line with the views of the President, Attorney General, Chief of Staff, and so on.
Maybe he won't. But it would be foolish to assume he won't.
I meant it in precisely that way: there is no sound policy interest in it.
Finishing the 9th grade or graduating high school should mean something, otherwise students who transfer will be at a significant disadvantage and colleges will have to waste valuable time on high school teaching.
First of all, this already happens. When I went to college 15 years ago, MOST of the kids did not have a functional understanding of algebra or grammar.
Second, and more importantly, so what? Why do you think local school districts are incapable of determing what is best for their kids on their own? I am not arguing that kids should not be well-educated. I am arguing that Everett does not need Seattle's help in determining what that means.
Or worse, only those who go to schools in Bellevue get accepted to college causing disparity.
Then you fire your school board and get a new one.
That's bad our economic future.
I am much more concerned with liberty than some nebulous concern over our "economic future," but that said, I think local standards are FAR more likely to improve our economic future as local school boards become truly free to do what is in the best interests of THEIR kids.
But just saying "it doesn't make sense" isn't a real concrete analysis of an obviously deep and complex issue.
It is neither deep nor complex, actually: Everett is capable of handling it on its own, and liberty requires that they should be allowed to do so.
To most people, this is self-evident.
No one is talking disarmament, yet. They hope to win this war via attrition. That is why Duncan's so potentially dangerous: he wants to win the battle against guns with our kids, brainwashing them against guns in the schools. Whether he will attempt to do this in his new position, we don't know, but he absolutely does want this to happen.
true ....but the end game is disarmament..IMO.
Posted by: hellpig on March 19, 2009 12:12 PMI've lived long enough to have been a first hand witness to all of this insanity. It makes me sick. As I mentioned earlier the left is well on the way to achieving one of its primary goals, the destruction of the traditional family. It's why they constantly wage war against Christianity. 40% of children are now born to single mothers. I'm 56 years old. Such a statistic when I was growing up was absolutely unimaginable.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 19, 2009 12:21 PMAnd no doubt under Duncan there will be more of this.
Posted by: travis t on March 19, 2009 12:36 PMDid you ever hear the Algore audio from a few months ago when he was addressing this 12 and under kids club (forgot name) but he states that the parenst don't know what they are talking about and that they should stop listening to them....if I have time ill try and dig up the audio link...scary stuff though...think I heard it on the Dori Munson show
Posted by: hellpig on March 19, 2009 12:37 PMBTW, in Massachusetts, when you take your kid to the pediatrician, there's a standard state form you fill out, and one of the questions is whether you have a gun in your home.
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/012756.html
"They got serious about standards and insisted on results. The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) is generally regarded as the high mark in rigorous standards in K-12 education. Massachusetts went down the challenging path of aligning its own standards to NAEP, with all the potential for upset that comes with such high expectations and public accountability."
It is neither deep nor complex, actually: Everett is capable of handling it on its own, and liberty requires that they should be allowed to do so.
Liberty dictates that they can refuse state or federal funding. Once they accept federal funding, or the state does, the unitary executive and congress have a constitutional right (per the Supreme Court) to attach conditions to those funds.
I absolutely agree that Everett should be able to turn down those funds. If it is in the national interest to have second-language education per congress and the unitary executive, then they can choose how to distribute funds.
As for distributing funds based on gun-control: Also a right of the federal government, but one that would people voted out of office since it is patently absurd and has nothing to do with education.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 01:33 PMNot surprised Pudge about that Massachusetts form requiring parents to state whether they have a gun.
People that don't understand what the left is and what their agenda is are simply naive.
It's why we need to stand firm for conservative principles and oppose these controlling nasty socialists. This is still a conservative country. We cannot make the mistake of trying to appease liberals with candidates like McCain. We have to stand for conservative principles and explain them clearly. There is a faction in the Republican Party that believes otherwise. They are wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 19, 2009 02:04 PMLiberty dictates that they can refuse state or federal funding.
Then you haven't been following the current Congressional push... Congress has chosen to allow legislatures to bypass the Governor in acceptance of stimulus funds.
It's really not a stretch at all to assume that the same will be applied to education - if a school or school board wants the funds, they can just ignore the superintendent and the State and take it directly.
So much for any respect of the separation of powers and the use of an executive, regardless the level.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 19, 2009 02:15 PMI wrote "there is no sound policy interest in it." You did not rebut this claim. Neither did Eric's quote rebut it: his point was about having high standards and ensuring they were followed, not the state dictating what those standards would be. That is apparently the path MA chose, but it's beside the point.
Liberty dictates that they can refuse state or federal funding.
No, that's only half the equation: they also TAKE the money in the first place, and they take it for an explicitly unconstitutional purpose. This is an obvious, clear violation of our liberty.
Once they accept federal funding, or the state does, the unitary executive and congress have a constitutional right (per the Supreme Court) to attach conditions to those funds.
But they have a constitutional prohibition from GIVING those funds. You keep forgetting that fact.
As for distributing funds based on gun-control: Also a right of the federal government
It depends both on what the funds are for (if for public education, then no, it is unconstitutional) and what the conditions are (if they violate the Second Amendment, then no, they are unconstitutional).
but one that would people voted out of office since it is patently absurd and has nothing to do with education.
Again: the feds (and the state) push non-educational items ALL THE TIME on the local districts.
Let's add something to your "fact": The Supreme Court, the congress, the unitary executive, the State of Washington, and the school districts of Puget Sound live in the reality where this is indeed a constitutional practice. Though that obviously disagrees with your principles, I wouldn't let that get in the way of making a sound educational system.
And you are offering no evidence to say that a level of federal standardization to give some uniform meaning to a high school degree isn't a sound policy decision besides opining that, well, it "isn't" and talking about the 10th Amendment. You can back up your argument with any substance if you expect me to "refute" it.
In terms of second-language education -- i.e. why should we have standards on that? Because the research that has found that it creates a smarter student body, of course. (Note that my philosophy on education have nothing to do with the 10th amendment, but everything to do with education.)
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 04:51 PMit's the height of boring policy discussion to have everything come down as "no" because of the 10th Amendment.
Yes, as I have said many times, many people in this country do not care about the rule of law, as you don't.
The Supreme Court, the congress, the unitary executive, the State of Washington, and the school districts of Puget Sound live in the reality where this is indeed a constitutional practice
Well, no, it is not a constitutional practice. Period. They falsely consider it to be, but it's not.
And I don't see how you think this is relevant to anything I said anyway. You appear to be saying I shouldn't talk about this because it won't change anything, too many people in power disagree with me. But we are having discussions about what should happen, and what should not happen. I can also say "we should not give hundreds of billions in handouts to AIG," but the fact is, we're doing it. Does that mean I shouldn't say it?
Though that obviously disagrees with your principles, I wouldn't let that get in the way of making a sound educational system.
If this were the First or Fourth or Fifth Amendment, you and most liberals would say, we cannot violate these things, the mere act of it debases us all, even if the government considers it legal. And you'd be right. And I'm right here.
Further, a sound educational system cannot be built on the theft of liberty required for violation of the Tenth Amendment. This is, indeed, part of why our public educational system is so poor today, because it has stolen our liberty.
And you are offering no evidence to say that a level of federal standardization to give some uniform meaning to a high school degree isn't a sound policy decision besides opining that, well, it "isn't" and talking about the 10th Amendment.
Yes, I am. If you understood the Tenth Amendment, you would understand why a violation of it is a bad thing in and of itself, just like a violation of the First Amendment is. The Tenth Amendment is not merely a legal barrier to hurdle, it is an embodiment of the principle of self-governance itself, the principle that the PEOPLE are the most free when they get to make their OWN decisions for THEMSELVES. Violating the Tenth Amendment is not a technicality, it is literally theft of our liberty.
We CAN make our own school standards decisions, and we THEREFORE SHOULD, because that is what it means to be free, and that is FAR more important than any complaints anyone could possibly come up with, especially those about "the economy" and so on.
In terms of second-language education -- i.e. why should we have standards on that? Because the research that has found that it creates a smarter student body, of course
Irrelevant. I already noted that knowing another language is a good thing. What I question is whether the hundreds or thousands of hours spent learning another language could not be put to better use. History, for example.
As I am not saying learning another language is a bad thing, or that it does not produce good secondary results, you cannot argue against me by saying "it produces these secondary results," as you must either make the argument that a. the learning of the language itself is an essential goal, or b. that it is the best way to achieve these secondary results. I believe that neither a nor b is true.
I've never once seen a valid argument for either a or b. No one has ever shown me that learning a language is essential for all, or even most, children; nor have I ever seen a valid argument that the secondary results (e.g., understanding the English language better) are best achieved by learning another language.
Case law is that it is constitutional. You may disagree with that, but that is the current law in the United States. So yes, I do believe in the rule of law.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 06:17 PMNo, you do not. Constitutionality is not what the Supreme Court says it is, it is what the Constitution says it is. That is the law. The Supreme Court gets to say how the government must interpret the law, but it does not have the power, let alone the authority, to change what the Constitution says.
Indeed, the Supreme Court in striking down Tenth Amendment challenges itself is often ignoring the rule of law. You cannot absolve yourself by allowing them to do the dirty work for you.
Pudge, education policy shouldn't be decided based on argument but on research. And research does show that secondary language learning helps students in both primary and secondary ways. I don't know if it's the "best" but most universities seem to think it's valuable since it is nearly a universal requirement to get admitted to a four-year college. That is reason enough to give students across the country access to that sort of education.
No one has proposed making it law that any school that gets federal money teach a second language. The second that comes up, you can raise hell about it. But I would be shocked of someone running for President or someone running the Department of Education didn't have an opinion on learning a secondary language.
If assigning a high school degree some universal meaning across the country means some federal intervention, I am not scared by that as long as it makes our students more competitive. Obviously, it would be constitutional by any mature understanding of the law.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 06:45 PMThe Constitution is not what you say it is, either.
So I'm going to take the interpretation of the Supreme Court over yours. And I'm going to discuss my policy in terms of the current reality, rather than the Ron Paul "reality."
So when you say something is a "fact" and the Supreme Court as well as the vast majority of the country disagrees with you: That's a pretty rich "fact."
Posted by: John Jensen on March 19, 2009 06:55 PMAnd research does show that secondary language learning helps students in both primary and secondary ways.
Um. I ALREADY CONCEDED THIS. It is BESIDE THE POINT. How are you not getting this?
I don't know if it's the "best" but most universities seem to think it's valuable since it is nearly a universal requirement to get admitted to a four-year college
Universities do a lot of stupid things.
That is reason enough to give students across the country access to that sort of education.
No, it's really not.
The Constitution is not what you say it is, either.
Correct. It is what the Constitution says. Duh.
So I'm going to take the interpretation of the Supreme Court over yours.
You mean you're going to engage in a red herring fallacy.
And I'm going to discuss my policy in terms of the current reality, rather than the Ron Paul "reality."
And you're going to be dishonest about the nature of the discussion, which was about how things SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be.
So when you say something is a "fact" and the Supreme Court as well as the vast majority of the country disagrees with you: That's a pretty rich "fact."
Again with the red herring fallacies. And this one is compounded by the FACT that you are making up thee "fact" that the "vast majority of the country" disagrees with me.