BLUF / TL;DR: The State of Florida is suing the Department of Education, et-all. There are a few arguments:
First, and foremost, there is a delegation problem. Under the Constitution, all legislative authority is given to Congress. It and it alone is empowered to make laws and may not delegate that authority to others. But that is what it has done with regard to eligibility to receive federal student-aid money
- I don't think this one will stand. I have other issues with it, but the Department of Education is under the Executive Branch which was created by legislation passed by the Legislative Branch. There could be an argument that perhaps the Executive Branch has over-executed the authority given to it by the law, which is the argument being made here, but I'm not seeing this being the point that wins. The only other case I can think of is when the Supreme Court ruled last year on the EPA's authority to restrict carbon emissions... stating essentially the same thing. This does set precedence, and it's possible that the DOE could in fact lose on this same condition. I just think it's unlikely. The slight difference here is that they've authorized a private entity to distribute "federal" funds, and I can think of no similar example except perhaps charities?
Another argument Florida makes is that the accreditation system violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Under the Constitution, officials who “exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” must be appointed in a legally prescribed manner. The people in accrediting agencies have not been so appointed.
- I see this one being successful. I'm not aware of any standards that the DOE has officially set on their own for conditions of the student loan funds... there could be, I'm just not aware of them. But this is a solid argument. That said, this could easily be solved with a more clear directive from the Secretary of the DOE, and it would nullify that part of the lawsuit.
And third, the accreditation system violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause, which allows Congress to spend money and place conditions upon its receipt. The Supreme Court has held that any conditions must be unambiguous. The problem is that accreditors impose ambiguous and changing conditions upon colleges and universities.
- Same as the argument above. This could be "cured" in effect, and render this argument null and void.
Couple of other thoughts... and to the point of my subject title. The accreditation goal was a private bi-partisan effort to create a set of standards for a good formal education. This worked quite well for a long time. Democrats have now politicized it by injecting their ideologies into these accreditation boards (through pressure from Government), just as they did with actual Federal organizations such as NASA under Obama (which is why NASA is so far behind today) and the IRS also under Obama, and most of the Federal organizations under Biden ... which fosters mistrust. Democrats view these agencies not as an establishment for the people, but as an action arm for their political agenda and ideology. In effect... Stalinist behavior. All of this erodes the trust in Government (which is at an all-time high ... mistrust), and it destroys the very institutions that were built years earlier that were done so with good intent.
I think if the lawsuit is successful, and the accreditation boards will no longer define what schools are eligible for Federal student loans... which will turn into a complete mess making loans available for literally anything under the sun, such as certifications, to clown school.
More apropos, the Federal government should never have even bothered to take ownership of student loans... this should have always remained private. We always say... the Government doesn't solve problems, but it intentionally creates new problems for which it then promises a solution to. This "student loan" crisis is directly as a result of the Federal government taking ownership/consolidation and regulation of student loans, all of which USED to be done by private companies. I think there are only two private companies that are still allowed to offer student loans, and that was because a senator refused to approve the bill that Obama would sign, unless they allowed these loan companies to remain.
It's OK if politicians do nothing, because the Government is not the solution to market-problems... it only creates more problems, more turmoil, and more disruption.
My opinion, the Federal government should get out of the student loan business... and allow the private sector to again manage and own this. The banks will become competitive and offer better and lower rates for students. If the Federal government wants to ensure that underprivileged students have the opportunity for student loans, then they can offer THAT with a family income disparity. But the Federal government shouldn't "socialize" it by forcing everyone under the same umbrella (and to their detriment) just to ensure that the lower income families are paid for. This is something that the Federal government should be reasonably responsible for paying for in the budget, which should not be running deficits. One of the best economies we ever had, was a centrist willing Democrat president, and a Republican-majority House and Senate.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think if the lawsuit is successful, and the accreditation boards will no longer define what schools are eligible for Federal student loans... which will turn into a complete mess making loans available for literally anything under the sun, such as certifications, to clown school.
Don't you mean "if the lawsuit fails..."..?
The lawsuit in which the State of Florida is the plaintiff.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-02-2023).]
The lawsuit in which the State of Florida is the plaintiff.
No, I meant what I said. If the lawsuit fails... then nothing happens.
A potential negative ramification of the lawsuit succeeding could be that the government loses the ability to clearly define where the money can be used... thus allowing it to go for pretty much anything. Potentially this doesn't succeed, and as a result the government cures the problem by more clearly defining how the money is to be used, further eliminating discretion of the academic accreditation boards.
The problem is that the academic boards have been politicized, and are often doing things (at the behest of Democrats) to support policies that have more to do with DEI, and less to do with upholding academic standards. THIS is the reason that Ron DeSantis is bringing the lawsuit in the first place... but as I said, it could potentially disrupt a questionably successful partnership with the DOE and the universities.
But perhaps... and this is just me thinking out loud, maybe that's for the best, maybe this is what we want? The government should get out of the student loan program with Federal funds. There are much better ways for the government to ensure that the underprivileged have equal opportunity to educational loans. This can be done through reasonable regulation. There are many situations in which the government places regulations for which they offer tax incentives for PRIVATELY managed opportunity. For example, the 529 College Investment program. It's Federally regulated, but designated to the private sector to manage, and with private investment. Works surprisingly well.
We just need to get politics out of education. I realize the left intentionally uses this as a means of indoctrination, but this damages academic institutions... like what's happening now. Schools got together under their own volition to create standards for accreditation... much in the same way that the banks got together to set a standard for credit cards under PCI DSS. All of this was done by private sector through gentle "encouragement" by the Federal government (threat to manage it themselves), and it worked well... until the Government started using the standards boards as a means to push a DEI and Marxist agenda.
Like the Citizens United lawsuit... unintended consequences.
Then you must hate DeSantis. All he is doing is trying to use his influence to control what is taught in schools and eliminating anything that does not fit his political agenda.
Then you must hate DeSantis. All he is doing is trying to use his influence to control what is taught in schools and eliminating anything that does not fit his political agenda.
Vertical Federalism... I think the states have the right to represent in the image of their culture and constituency. It's the Federal government that I don't think should have the right to impose it's values on the states, because we have a document which limits what the government can do.
But DeSantis is a product of the majority-Republican middle-class and wealthy voters of Florida. He represents in large part how we want society in Florida to remain. Constitutional carry, freedom of speech, and restrictions on abortion... and the freedom for parents to control the upbringing and education of their children. Likewise, to guide and direct the education of the top-notch universities in Florida (UF, FSU, FIU, UM, FAU, etc.).
DeSantis' approval rating is about 59-62% in Florida, depending on the poll you look at. This correctly accounts for the make-up of Republicans vs. Democrats. But it gets a lot higher when you break down the individual work he's done. On the environment, DeSantis has been spectacular, and he gets really, really high marks on protecting (and reversing the decades of damage of) Florida's environment.
Florida has a population just under 23 million. There are 750k more registered Republicans in Florida than Democrats now. Only 14 million of those 23 million are actually registered to vote. So mathematically, this is insignificant in a 23 million population... so comparing a 750k lean to 14 million barely makes it 55% leaning Republican if we're split down the middle (and not counting Independents). So a 59-62%, so he realistically has most independents, and some Democrats on his side.
In 2020, DeSantis barely won the election against Andrew Gillum, by less than 1%. Gillum has since gone on to have overdosed with gay prostitutes in a hotel room, and is now serving jail time... so that ended his career after the fact. But DeSantis has really won over the state... especially since prior Republican governors rarely got over 50% approval, ever...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Vertical Federalism... I think the states have the right to represent in the image of their culture and constituency. It's the Federal government that I don't think should have the right to impose it's values on the states, because we have a document which limits what the government can do.
But DeSantis is a product of the majority-Republican middle-class and wealthy voters of Florida. He represents in large part how we want society in Florida to remain. Constitutional carry, freedom of speech, and restrictions on abortion... and the freedom for parents to control the upbringing and education of their children. Likewise, to guide and direct the education of the top-notch universities in Florida (UF, FSU, FIU, UM, FAU, etc.).
DeSantis' approval rating is about 59-62% in Florida, depending on the poll you look at. This correctly accounts for the make-up of Republicans vs. Democrats. But it gets a lot higher when you break down the individual work he's done. On the environment, DeSantis has been spectacular, and he gets really, really high marks on protecting (and reversing the decades of damage of) Florida's environment.
Florida has a population just under 23 million. There are 750k more registered Republicans in Florida than Democrats now. Only 14 million of those 23 million are actually registered to vote. So mathematically, this is insignificant in a 23 million population... so comparing a 750k lean to 14 million barely makes it 55% leaning Republican if we're split down the middle (and not counting Independents). So a 59-62%, so he realistically has most independents, and some Democrats on his side.
In 2020, DeSantis barely won the election against Andrew Gillum, by less than 1%. Gillum has since gone on to have overdosed with gay prostitutes in a hotel room, and is now serving jail time... so that ended his career after the fact. But DeSantis has really won over the state... especially since prior Republican governors rarely got over 50% approval, ever...
HE WORKED HARD TO EARN THE NAME DE-SATAN only the most hard core of THE Gop SUPPORT HIM
the non Gop hate his evil actions every sick stupid ACT of the RWNJ'S HATE and FEAR rhonda over does TO THE MAX
btw still missing thousands of teachers no sane person wants to teach under the nazi rules of his his BS on slaves is a national disgrace as is his ideas on gays the mouse the laws his caving into the ins lobby his immigration BS stunts
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Vertical Federalism... I think the states have the right to represent in the image of their culture and constituency. ..
So you actually DON'T want to get politics out of education. You are fine as long as it is the politics you agree with.
We should give parents a choice: state controlled indoctrination or private education.
Parents right now have the choice of private or public schools. But tax dollars should never go to private schools. Many private teach that there is a magic man in the sky that controls everything. We can't have tax dollars devoted to teaching children **** that crazy.
Originally posted by fredtoast: 1. There is nothing wrong with DEI. Which part of it are you against? Are you anti-diversity, anti-inclusion, or anti-equality?
2. Accreditation has never been used to push a Marxist agenda.
Eat crap.
There is EVERYTHING wrong with it.
My life, my choice as to who are what or who gets included or excluded. What I love or hate, like or dislike. Who or what i consider equal, superior or inferior.
IOW, I will think and decide for myself, thank you very much....
And if you and your leftist-marxist kind dont like it, then you can get the frack on your knees and suck the sheet out of my azzhole.
**** OFF !!!!....cant make it much clearer than that.
We should give parents a choice: state controlled indoctrination or private education.
After talking to friends of mine who attended private (Catholic) schools, it would appear that private controlled indoctrination or public education would be much more apt descriptors.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 08-02-2023).]
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: My life, my choice as to who are what or who gets included or excluded. What I love or hate, like or dislike. Who or what i consider equal, superior or inferior.
IOW, I will think and decide for myself, thank you very much.....
I agree. That is exactly how it is supposed to work on an individual basis.
But we are talking about public institutions. You don't get to make the rules for them.
"Public institutions" (and even private institutions) make "policy" and 'rules" which intrude on, cancel and negate the right of the individual to say "no"
Long past time to institutionalize the institutionary. I'm thinking Treblinka might be a good place to start.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-02-2023).]
"Public institutions" (and even private institutions) make "policy" and 'rules" which intrude on, cancel and negate the right of the individual to say "no"
Of course they do. That is the only way society can function. No single individual gets to make all the rules for society to fit his own beliefs.
You honestly think that you should be allowed to rule everyone's life by imposing your rules on all public and private institutions?
Originally posted by fredtoast: And here is another OBJECTIVE example of you wasting everyone's time with posts that contain not facts or even discussion.
Please point out whenever I do this so everyone can see.
Sorry for making this post that adds nothing to the thread, but I am trying to embarrass 82TA enough so that he stops this type of behavior.
Everyone here is thankful that you're saving them by "embarrassing" me with whatever it is you think you just did.
DEI is code for political classism and ideological fighting. It serves no purpose to lift people up, but instead to separate people into groups and pit them against each other. This is why I don't support it. Being forward-looking here... the Democrats have really outdone themselves. You can be absolutely sure there will be a Republican in the White House in January of 2025.
Dont need their permission or consent to exclude them from my existence. By definition it is mine and they are trespassers.
You are running in circles chasing your own tail. How are schools trespassing on your existence? They aren't. They have nothing to do with you. Everyone agrees you have the right to ignore them. But they are doing NOTHING to you.
No it isn't. That is a classic straw man argument. You can not argue against what it really is so you make up a strawman to attack.
Weak.
I don't think you know what a Strawman is. This is not a strawman.
A strawman argument is if you were to tell me that you liked McDonalds, and then I was to tell you that you were a bigot because you must then hate Taco Bell, and thus all central-Americans.
I am shocked too that this isn't making news... this is truly a big deal, and to be completely honest, we are totally deserving of it as well. If I was to take an unbiased view of the United States credit rating, I would list it as an A at most... possibly less. There are only two times in modern history that I would possibly view our credit rating as AAA... and that would be 1987 under Reagan, and then around 1997 under Clinton. I might even give it to Trump in 2019... just before the Pandemic. Before he passed the liberal COVID spending bill, he was actually poised to run a budget surplus for the first time since Clinton. But at that point, we still had so much insurmountable debt that I think it would be disingenuous... even if he inherited it at that point.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I am shocked too that this isn't making news... this is truly a big deal, and to be completely honest, we are totally deserving of it as well. If I was to take an unbiased view of the United States credit rating, I would list it as an A at most... possibly less. There are only two times in modern history that I would possibly view our credit rating as AAA... and that would be 1987 under Reagan, and then around 1997 under Clinton. I might even give it to Trump in 2019... just before the Pandemic. Before he passed the liberal COVID spending bill, he was actually poised to run a budget surplus for the first time since Clinton. But at that point, we still had so much insurmountable debt that I think it would be disingenuous... even if he inherited it at that point.
absolutely insane all most traitorous as the rump idea
what does replace the USD ?
putin's rubble rubles the reds china controled yuan saudi oil barrels giving them more power englands depressed pounds german marks now call euro's
every little person with a USA 100D BILL KNOWS THAT IS THE BEST LONG TERM WORLD WIDE STASH
absolutely insane all most traitorous as the rump idea
what does replace the USD ?
putin's rubble rubles the reds china controled yuan saudi oil barrels giving them more power englands depressed pounds german marks now call euro's
every little person with a USA 100D BILL KNOWS THAT IS THE BEST LONG TERM WORLD WIDE STASH
any one trying to change that is NOT loyal
Ray, we can blame Nixon if you want... but I think the USD should never have been taken off the gold standard. It's basically worthless... like, what makes it valuable? Because we print it?
I think the USA is awesome too... don't get me wrong, but it takes one black swan event at this point, and the world will shift to whatever currency isn't being manipulated. Obviously I don't think it's the Ruble... but I know that China has been pushing hard to either make the Yuan the next world reserve currency, or to create something else through BRICS. Even the Europeans are tired of our **** ...
