Constitutional Schooling. On Education

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam’s recent statement to the news media about education is making waves among Tennessee constitutionalists.  He said:

“Obama administration’s efforts on education, by and large, are right on target. The things they’re putting influence on and emphasizing are on target.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, we’ve probably averaged calls once a week since I’ve been in office to (talk about) things I’m working on and how they might help.”

Ay yi yi, where to start?  When taking the oath of office, Governor Haslam swore to support the Constitution of the United States.  So let’s compare his statement with what the U.S. Constitution says about education.

The U.S. Constitution states that the role of the federal government in education is … um … well … oops, there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution about education.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.

(If you want to verify this for yourself, go to the full text of the Constitution online, and press Ctrl + F to open your browser’s word search feature.  Search for the words like school, education, teaching, etc. in the full text of the Constitution.  You won’t find them, because they’re not there.)

Hm, so then why is Gov. Haslam saying that Obama is right on target with his education efforts?  According to the Constitution, President Obama shouldn’t be creating any education policies, agendas or efforts.  The Constitution gives the federal government no role in education whatsoever.  Because education is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, it is clearly a power left to state and local governments, or to individuals, per the Tenth Amendment which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If Gov. Haslam is serious about his oath to support the U.S. Constitution, he cannot support any educational initiatives coming out of Washington DC.  According to the Constitution, the educational buck stops with the state and local governments, and most importantly, with parents.

Let’s look at the next part of Gov. Haslam’s statement.  Gov. Haslam says that he is talking to the U.S. Secretary of Education on the phone approximately once a week.  Certainly it is wise for a governor to seek outside counsel on the varied responsibilities that go with the governor’s office.  This is no less true for education, as constitutionally the state government does have a role to play in education.  But his choice of counsel here is troubling.

As education is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, the Department of Education is also unconstitutional.  This includes the position of Secretary of Education.  After all, if the federal government has no role in education, then what need is there for someone to advise the President on education?  Yet Gov. Haslam has chosen to call the unconstitutional head of an unconstitutional federal department for this counsel on a weekly basis.

Our Founders recognized that one-size-fits-all government is really one-size-fits-none government.  This is no more true than in the world of education.  Tennessee’s students have distinct and unique needs from students in other states.  Even individual children attending the same schools often have vastly different needs. 

How does Gov. Haslam violating the U.S. Constitution by going to the Obama administration for one-size-fits-none national education policies from Washington DC that sacrifice Tennessee’s constitutionally guaranteed powers to control its own educational system benefit Tennessee children?  The answer – it doesn’t.

About Lesley Swann

Lesley Swann is a Co-Host for Tenther Radio and the state chapter coordinator for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center. She is a native of Anderson County, Tennessee.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

7 comments
JamesRichard1
JamesRichard1

   "apart from hostility to religion, the liberal opposition to vouchers to save urban children from failed public schools is clearly motivated by a concern that with school choice may come political choice. In public schools, students will not receive differing viewpoints about the welfare state, equality under the law, or patriotism. They will receive almost no viewpoints at all, except political correctness, and they will be condemned to a standard not of excellence but of mediocrity. Again, Justice Thomas most trenchantly describes what liberals are doing: "Converting the Fourteenth amendment from a guarantee of opportunity to an obstacle against education reform distorts our constitutional values and dis-serves those in the greatest need."

Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.

C Ken Davis Sr
C Ken Davis Sr

1973 ruling by supreme court: San Antonio independent school district v. Rodriquez, 1973 - The Constitution does not compel government to provide services like education or welfare to the people. Rather it places boundaries on government action.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention on August 18, 1787, it was proposed to grant Congress the power “[t]o establish an University.” The proposal was not acted upon until September 14 when Mr. Madison and Mr. Pinkney “moved to insert in the list of powers vested in Congress a power ---'to establish an University, in which no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion.’” Their proposal was rejected.

If the delegates to the Federal Convention had structured the Constitution to grant the federal government general power over education, then why, three days before the Convention adjourned, was a proposal made that would have vested Congress with a special power? And if the federal government was denied the constitutional power “to establish an University” when the Constitution was written and adopted, where does it get the power to fund universities today?

Even in the dark halls of Washington D.C. one can find admissions that the federal government does not have any constitutional authority over education within the several States. On the website of the National Archives is a section that contained questions and answers on the Constitution (if it has not been removed). The source of the information was a book written by Sol Bloom in 1937 entitled: “The Story of the Constitution.”

"Question―Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?

Answer―There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States."

Since the Constitution has not been amended since Mr. Bloom’s book was written, education is still a matter reserved to the States. Thus, any federal intrusion into the field of education is nothing but a usurpation of power and a violation of the Constitution.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention on August 18, 1787, it was proposed to grant Congress the power “[t]o establish an University.” The proposal was not acted upon until September 14 when Mr. Madison and Mr. Pinkney “moved to insert in the list of powers vested in Congress a power ---'to establish an University, in which no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion.’” Their proposal was rejected.

If the delegates to the Federal Convention had structured the Constitution to grant the federal government general power over education, then why, three days before the Convention adjourned, was a proposal made that would have vested Congress with a special power? And if the federal government was denied the constitutional power “to establish an University” when the Constitution was written and adopted, where does it get the power to fund universities today?

Even in the dark halls of Washington D.C. one can find admissions that the federal government does not have any constitutional authority over education within the several States. On the website of the National Archives is a section that contained questions and answers on the Constitution (if it has not been removed). The source of the information was a book written by Sol Bloom in 1937 entitled: “The Story of the Constitution.”

"Question―Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?

Answer―There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States."

Since the Constitution has not been amended since Mr. Bloom’s book was written, education is still a matter reserved to the States. Thus, any federal intrusion into the field of education is nothing but a usurpation of power and a violation of the Constitution.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I think a lot of people actually believe that federal education mandates are legal under the constitution so I have to give them a break but some people deliberately work their buts off to find some interpretation that says education is in there. These people upset me quite a bit since they make me do mental gymnastics to prove them wrong or they use loose and broad definitions to get what they want. A good example is 'general welfare'. In there eyes that means everything under the sun.

Len
Len

Not to mention that such a power was specifically debated and rejected during the federal convention.

Austin H.
Austin H.

They are zombies, they can't help it.