Displaced Plainsman and I both celebrate the South Dakota Department of Education's decision to blow raspberries at No Child Left Behind. Even in the midst of huge budget cuts, we're willing to risk the loss of federal education dollars to push this unworkable, ineffective law toward reform, if not off the cliff. (And come on, President Obama won't take money away from little kids in an election year... will he?)
But as we break out the firecrackers to celebrate our national independence, I wonder: am I turning into Gordon Howie? I've razzed Howie and his ilk for efforts to nullify federal health insurance reform. I've said Howie's states' rights hyperbole risks secession and ignores the lessons of the Civil War.
So can I reconcile my criticism of Gordon Howie's Tea-flavored nuttery on health insurance reform with my approval of a state fight against No Child Left Behind? Can I consistently ding Attorney General Marty Jackley for waging a futile lawsuit against ObamaCare (this week's federal appeals court ruling upholding the individual mandate has got to hurt) and praise Education Secretary Melody Schopp for openly defying federal education law?
I like ObamaCare. I can see lots of good things it will do for South Dakota, like saving old folks millions of dollars. I do not like No Child Left Behind. I have seen no evidence that it is produced any net benefit for South Dakota. (Do kids you see on the street look smarter than kids ten years ago?)
But arguing practical benefits is different from arguing principles of states' rights and federal authority. I need to do some thinking (and I welcome your comment section contributions to said thinking!) to determine whether I need to work on my consistency... or whether I should send that little hobgoblin to the corner and get on with good policy.
p.s.: Funny: Gordon Howie hasn't dispatched his blog minion Brad Ford to address this state-vs.-federal issue on his own education blog yet. Come on, Gord! Hop to it!
When I read schopps comments she pointed out that the reason the state is dropping out of nclb is there would be to many kids / districts that would require help to meet the goal. SD is out because we will not invest any more in education.
Nclb has always been the republicans plan to cut funding for education and get vouchers for the rich to send their kids to private schools. Ask gov Christie .
I've wondered the same thing especially after the secession discussion the Bachmann thread.
I'll try to draw three distinctions. First, we're not nullifying the law; we're revising the implementation and the timetable of the implementation.
Second, the law has been up for reauthorization for a long time. Congress hasn't acted. This act is a push to act on a law that has lapsed.
Third, Duncan claims he's going to issue waivers anyway. If he's going to nullify it, why can't the state that negotiated the rules under threat take proactive acts to change them.
Of course, I may be rationalizing.
The difference is that NCLB is, for the most part, based on the spending clause (and not mandatory, rather akin to a contract between the state and federal government) and ObamaCare is based on the Commerce Clause (and therefore mandatory).
This is the difference between SD v. Dole (Federal Government has the power to enforce DUI laws under its Spending Power) and US v Lopez (Federal Government cannot regulate certain aspects of handguns under the commerce clause). It is a little more complicated than that, but the two are constitutionally very different situations. Your internal strife over feeling inconsistent is not warranted. (Although you wrongly characterize the court of appeals court ruling in relation to individual mandate).
If you search hard enough, you may find some old policy debate Federalism files from the 1999-2000 school year that go into great detail about the constitutional authority for the Feds to implement educational policies under the Spending clause, but not the commerce clause. :)
Cory, your internal dichotomy reminds me of my own similar conflict regarding abortion and capital punishment.
Consistency of mind counts for something!
I oppose both abortion and capital punishment. I also oppose individual states attempting to override or flout federal laws that legally "trump" them.
However, I realize that reality can sometimes get messy, so practical concerns might at times "trump" theory.
Good luck!
On this 4th of July weekend, what a great subject. As a nation based on law, all of us (liberal and conservative) must remember and look at solutions through and within the prism of our Constitution and form of government.
No matter how strongly on some issues we think a Federal/national solution may be best, our federal government was formed by the individual states (not the people directly).
And, in this formation the states retained certain authority and delegated other to the federal government. Conservative or liberal this reality must be respected always. To want it selectively only leads to mob rule.
I dont want to live under a liberal mob and libs dont want to live under a conservative mob. What protects us is our divided government and authority. On this 4th of July, we need to be grateful for living in the best nation on the face of the earth.