Ravenwood - 05/06/05 06:45 AM
More and more states are thumbing their nose at the No Child Left Behind Act. Fox News reports that Utah "enacted legislation to give its own state education standards priority over federal rules."
Utah is one of 16 states challenging or considering challenges to NCLB. Many state officials say they think the law is too rigid in measuring student proficiency and often conflicts with how states track their own progress.While I certainly lean anti-Federalist, I don't appreciate the cavalier attitude toward violating federal law. If states can violate this law, what other federal laws can they disobey?"Our state felt to say 'enough is enough,'" said Utah Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington.
Of course all this harkens back to the Seventeeth Amendment, which provides for the popular election of Senators. Previously Senators had been elected by the state legislatures, which gave the states a voice in federal politics.
With states removed from the federal process, the checks and balances the states had over the federal government was limited. The federal government not only began to expand uncontrollably, but it was empowered to impose its will over the individual states. Over time, mandates were imposed on the states, and the fed took control over some state institutions.
With the removal of checks and balances over the legislative branch, states were also removed from the federal judicial process. With states no longer having an influence on the selection of federal judges, Seventeen also destroyed the checks and balances over the judicial branch.
Category: Fall of Western Civilization
Comments (6) top link me
I don't think it's violating federal law (I agree, a no-no). Instead I think it is a decision to turn down federal funds that come with strings.
Maybe not that bad of a thing. Why is it that the federal government is involved in education at all again?
Posted by: Bob at May 6, 2005 8:16 AMBob,
They are not turning down federal funds. They are breaking the law up in hopes that the fed will overlook it and still provide them with lots of dough.
This about says it all: "could cost the state $476 million in federal aid if it strays too far from the law."
It's like leading the bases. If they get caught leading too far off first base they risk getting thrown out.
Posted by: Ravenwood at May 6, 2005 8:21 AMBreaking what law? What is the penalty? Prison time?
Sorry ... but your notion that the States must always obey the feds flies in the face of the 9th and 10th amendments.
The Utah legislature has every right to ignore this order. The feds CAN keep that money. In fact, they shouldn't have collected it in the first place.
If some federal judge orders them to do otherwise, they can use their own "nuclear option" ... stop providing state funded education, and make schools entirely a local, county, or private matter.
Posted by: kbarrett at May 6, 2005 5:13 PMkbarrett,
State vs. Federal sovereignty has been pretty muddled for the last 50 or 100 years. The courts have traditionally ruled that states don't have to follow federal law, unless there is an issue of 'interstate commerce'. Usually the 'interstate commerce' clause is interpreted so broadly, the fed gets what they want.
Looking to similar cases, the SCOTUS demanded that the states abide by the Family Medical Leave Act. Even though that would appear to violate state's rights.
On this issue, however, odds are that the states will violate the No Child Left Behind Act and still get federal money, though.
Posted by: Ravenwood at May 6, 2005 5:22 PMYou think Bush's education dept will look the other way? I think I've read elsewhere that some states are actually asking for waivers from the ed dept. (again, ok if properly granted). I don't remember all the details though.
But you (and Sen. Zell Miller) are on to something. The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment (and, I would say, the Sixteenth, too) is a key turning point in our nation's history that I think is oft overlooked.
Posted by: Bob at May 6, 2005 10:15 PMNot all of that is set in stone. I forgot what case it was but federal law was succesfully challenged on the interstate commerce act when a kid in California violated a federal weapons ban on school property. The Supreme Court said such a large loose translation in the interstate commerce clause that regulates what you can take to school is a violation of the checks and balances that the Constitution was created for. That was ruled at a time when the S.C. made sense. I bet the same thing can happen with this bill.
Posted by: Rhett at May 8, 2005 10:54 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
