Public Education II

II. Constitutional Conviction

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (3)

What you just read was the presidential oath of office. With it’s utterance one of the most powerful men in the world is sworn into office. Yet too often the words spoken are ignored in light of the magnitude of the inauguration itself. At the core of what we as members of the CP believe about education and other issues is covered in that brief statement. We are committed to, “Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States…” This means that everything we do seeks to be in line with the constitution. Many of the problems in our country are a result of ignoring certain constitutional restraints and dictates. I’ll deal more with that in future articles but for now it’s enough to know that we hold to a “strict construction” view of the constitution. This means that we only want to allow that which the constitution explicitly permits. We get this view in part from the Tenth amendment, the last amendment in the Bill of Rights which says: “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.” It is partly, (although not solely) on this basis that we derive the view that the State can only do what it was given explicate permission to do. Yet, a cursory glance at the Constitution will show that there is absolutely no basis for establishing something on the scale of a federally mandated public education system. Under the current laws the State has the power to outlaw the teaching of whatever they find threatening, because they control the educational standards. Under current law the State determines who can teach, because they control the certification standards. They can even take kids away from their parents if they think they are being mistreated, intellectually or physically. The main difference between the totalitarian regimes of history and America today is the extent to which our leaders have used their powers. The whole purpose of the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights is to bind the State and limit its power. Yet the shackles have been loosed! Not by the hobnailed tread of a foreign power, or the careful plotting of some evil nemesis, but rather by the passivity of the American people! Unless we as a people once more bind the State with the Constitutional limits established at our founding we cannot hope to maintain the Republic.

Defining The Issue

Before I post any more articles on this blog I want to explain some of the reason's I decided to start one in the first place.

One of the primary reasons I started this blog was to explain my recent political conversion from a Republican to a member of the Constitution Party. Many conservatives agree with almost everything on the CP's agenda. Most Christians find a lot to like. However there are also many areas where both groups find fault. This blog is the result of many hours of research and thought on my part. It is my feeble attempt to explain and perhaps defend the planks of the CP's platform. I have added a new feature, the "Future Posts" section to the left of the screen to give an example of the kinds of things I want to deal with on this blog. My request to you readers? Please take the time to listen. Not so long ago when I heard someone begin to criticize President Bush, the War in Iraq, or the Republican agenda I shut off automatically. You may still disagree with me, that's fine. All I ask is for you to listen, and to show me where I am wrong.

Public Education I

I. Defining Government

If you take the time to read the CP’s platform you will immediately notice that we seem to want to get rid of a lot of things: public education, government welfare, wage and price controls, ect… For many people this is a cause of bewilderment. Who could be against education? Or who would fight against the care of the poor? These questions illustrate an important point that must be understood before we can really understand the CP’s platform. At the root of a lot of our beliefs is a high view of limited government. This value is rooted in an assumption, the assumption that there are certain, predetermined institutions and that these institutions have certain exclusive functions.

Gary DeMar in his book, God and Government Volume I, illustrates this point well when he says: “What is government? When this question is asked, most people respond by equating government solely with a centralized state. Even our language reflects the confusion: “Government? It’s in Washington,” or “The government will take care of its citizens through its many programs.” Both of these statements reflect a misunderstanding of the true nature of government. They portray the idea that the only governing institution is a political one.”(2)

However government is so much more than just the Civil government. While this is certainly a legitimate form of government it is only one of several that God has ordained. On p. 21 of the book I mentioned above Gary DeMar has a diagram illustrating this point:

GOD

Independent, Autonomous, and Unlimited Governing Authority

(Isaiah 9:6-7)

|

MAN AND HUMAN INSTITUTIONS

(Colossians 1:16-17 and Romans 13:1-4)

|

Bible

|

Family Church Civil

(Self-Government) (Self-Government) (Self-Government)

As you can see all authority comes from God, the only autonomous form of authority. Each of the Human institutions are ordained by God and governed by the Bible. While there are obviously some overlaps between these three governments, (especially between Family and Church.) For the most part each is self-governing and independent. Each of them has their own unique areas of responsibility that only they can perform. For example, while most Americans would embrace the ideals of a democratic republic and many Christians would defend it as the best form of government, few would defend enacting it in the home. In the home the biblical view is a dictatorship, in a sense, where the father is the head of the household and the parents are always to be obeyed. We’ll talk more about the responsibilities of these different governments in point five. However I hope this explains why we can support things like education and fighting poverty and still be against the government doing it. An illustration that I like to use is of a man with a broken arm and a man with a clogged sink. Both are in need of help, however it is clear that the doctor is needed to fix the arm, and the plumber to fix the sink. No one would protest to this distinction in roles as each has his own area of expertise and responsibility.

Before we move on to the second point I want to qualify my terms. In light of the distinctions made above when I refer to the civil form of government I am going to use the term State. Please do not confuse this with the 50 states of America. If I am talking about civil government I will capitalize the word and say State.

Public Education: Getting to the Root of the Problem

A short time ago, when I was just getting started in politics, I met a couple of people who were members of the Constitution Party, (CP). Since they were friends of mine I decided to look into it and see what they stood for. As I read the platform I saw a lot of things that I agreed with, pro-life, pro-family, limited government, ect… Yet as I read on I saw something that caught my eye, it was the CP’s stance on education:

“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents. Education should be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans, except with respect to veterans. Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education should be abolished; all federal legislation related to education should be repealed. No federal laws subsidizing or regulating the education of children should be enacted. Under no circumstances should the federal government be involved in national teacher certification, education curricula, textbook selection, learning standards, comprehensive sex education, psychological and psychiatric research testing programs and personnel.”… (1)

I was somewhat taken aback, I agreed that our schools had a lot of problems but to get rid of public education altogether sounded so extreme! What possible reasons could they give, I wondered, as to the purpose of this reactionary and uncalled for measure? As I grew in my understanding and continued to read and think I too became convinced of the correctness of the CP’s agenda on this issue and others. However as I was investigating it I could find no defense of this attack on public education. So I as a member of the Constitution Party I want to lay out the case against public education and get to the root of the problem!  My argument can be laid out in six points. 
 While best viewed as a whole I know that 
the length would deter many people.  
So I have divided the article into six different posts which I will post at various times.