College Recruitment for the Military Protection Bill

[TomC]

As I have continually stated there would be nothing constitutionally wrong with this bill if it stated that the federal government would defund such institutions however by expressly prohibiting the actions of regionally controlled public universities this becomes unconstitutional.

^^^

[WMS]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

Its mostly a carry over from American law, IIRC since we have not specifically stated anything differently. The current system, therefore, is that the states, which would carry over to regions, run and fund the public universities. As I have said though if anyone can point out something on the contrary then there is no reason to believe that there is federal funding or control of these institutions.

Thanks for your reply, and Senator Hawk dug up that section of the Constitution, remember? The legal status of this issue seems unclear...

[Colin]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

Its mostly a carry over from American law, IIRC since we have not specifically stated anything differently. The current system, therefore, is that the states, which would carry over to regions, run and fund the public universities. As I have said though if anyone can point out something on the contrary then there is no reason to believe that there is federal funding or control of these institutions.

Thanks for your reply, and Senator Hawk dug up that section of the Constitution, remember? The legal status of this issue seems unclear...

Well Dave is wrong. Here this is from the Wiki article on Public Universities:

In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than a dozen. This is a direct result of the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which gave each eligible state 30,000 acres (120 km²) of federal land upon which to establish educational institutions. States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. It has never been determined whether the U.S. Constitution would allow the federal government to establish a federal university system; the only federally chartered universities that currently exist are those under the auspices of the U.S. military, such as West Point, the Naval Academy and the United States Air Force Academy.

Just as another example as well and to rebut Mr. Hawk's statement concerning the lack of ability for state universities to fund themselves just as an example Pennsylvania State University's annual endowment is 1.2 billion dollars as of 2006. This is from the Wikipedia article here.

[Democratic Hawk]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

Its mostly a carry over from American law, IIRC since we have not specifically stated anything differently. The current system, therefore, is that the states, which would carry over to regions, run and fund the public universities. As I have said though if anyone can point out something on the contrary then there is no reason to believe that there is federal funding or control of these institutions.

Thanks for your reply, and Senator Hawk dug up that section of the Constitution, remember? The legal status of this issue seems unclear...

Well Dave is wrong. Here this is from the Wiki article on Public Universities:

In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than a dozen. This is a direct result of the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which gave each eligible state 30,000 acres (120 km²) of federal land upon which to establish educational institutions. States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. It has never been determined whether the U.S. Constitution would allow the federal government to establish a federal university system; the only federally chartered universities that currently exist are those under the auspices of the U.S. military, such as West Point, the Naval Academy and the United States Air Force Academy.

Just as another example as well and to rebut Mr. Hawk's statement concerning the lack of ability for state universities to fund themselves just as an example Pennsylvania State University's annual endowment is 1.2 billion dollars as of 2006. This is from the Wikipedia article here.

Thanks for clarifying the situation with regard to public universities and their funding

Nevertheless, given that most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities would they receive any federal funding at all or not?. Because if they do, and they refuse to allow the military to recruit on their premises, then perhaps the path to take would be to remove what federal funding they do receive since the withdrawal of such federal funding is unlikely to have a detrimental impact (which, of course, was my concern)

Furthermore, this Bill might seemingly be more appropriate to be determined at the regional level of government given that the only federally-funded institutions, such as West Point, the Naval Academy and the United States Air Force Academy, which as you have pointed out operate under the auspices of the military anyway

Of course, I referred to the Clause 15 of Section 5 Article I of the Second Constitution, which I understood as specifically stating that the provision of education was a responsiblity of the Atlasian Senate

'Hawk'

[Colin]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

Its mostly a carry over from American law, IIRC since we have not specifically stated anything differently. The current system, therefore, is that the states, which would carry over to regions, run and fund the public universities. As I have said though if anyone can point out something on the contrary then there is no reason to believe that there is federal funding or control of these institutions.

Thanks for your reply, and Senator Hawk dug up that section of the Constitution, remember? The legal status of this issue seems unclear...

Well Dave is wrong. Here this is from the Wiki article on Public Universities:

In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than a dozen. This is a direct result of the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which gave each eligible state 30,000 acres (120 km²) of federal land upon which to establish educational institutions. States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. It has never been determined whether the U.S. Constitution would allow the federal government to establish a federal university system; the only federally chartered universities that currently exist are those under the auspices of the U.S. military, such as West Point, the Naval Academy and the United States Air Force Academy.

Just as another example as well and to rebut Mr. Hawk's statement concerning the lack of ability for state universities to fund themselves just as an example Pennsylvania State University's annual endowment is 1.2 billion dollars as of 2006. This is from the Wikipedia article here.

Thanks for clarifying the situation with regard to public universities and their funding

Nevertheless, given that most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities would they receive any federal funding at all or not?. Because if they do, and they refuse to allow the military to recruit on their premises, then perhaps the path to take would be to remove what federal funding they do receive since the withdrawal of such federal funding is unlikely to have a detrimental impact (which, of course, was my concern)

This is what I have been recommending to this Senate since the beginning if they want this statue to be constitutional.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely but, more than likely, there are no military recruiters on the grounds of the public service academies due to the fact that all graduates must be a part of the branch of armed service whose school they attend for a set number of years. So that would render this bill useless.

[jerusalemcar5]

Of course, I referred to the Clause 15 of Section 5 Article I of the Second Constitution, which I understood as specifically stating that the provision of education was a responsiblity of the Atlasian Senate

'Hawk'

It merely says the Senate has the power to aid education.  I strongly doubt you can come up with a serious reason why forcing the military on campuses helps education.

Military and education are not intertwined at all.  Yet another reason to not have them on school grounds.

[Democratic Hawk]

Of course, I referred to the Clause 15 of Section 5 Article I of the Second Constitution, which I understood as specifically stating that the provision of education was a responsiblity of the Atlasian Senate

'Hawk'

It merely says the Senate has the power to aid education.  I strongly doubt you can come up with a serious reason why forcing the military on campuses helps education.

Military and education are not intertwined at all.  Yet another reason to not have them on school grounds.

The Senate has the power to aid education, which by definition could include its funding, education just as it funds the military. Given that our national defense is, arguably, the primary role of federal government, is it not in the interests of our national defense to allow the military to recruit on publically-funded colleges? Surprising as it might seem the military needs volunteers. As I've said time and time again, students won't be press-ganged into joining the military but will do so at their own free will

My support for this Bill concerned more the fact that I consider it to be in the national interest and you know how robustly the Hawk champions that

It may be time for a little reflection on this as to where to proceed from here should this Bill fail. Even in the event of the veto being overriden it would would seem that it will more than likely be struck down by the Supreme Court for the reasons Justice Wixted among others have stated

'Hawk'

[jerusalemcar5]

Given that our national defense is, arguably, the primary role of federal government.

This is the "George W. Bush Philosophy" which is that defending our country comes before all other matters.  The "Founding Fathers Philosophy" is that the Constitution and the freedom of our people come first.  The latter philosophy was largely ignored as time went on in the U.S. and we all know where we are now.  I would hope that Atlasia would not venture down the same path and that the senators would not ignore their oath to uphold the constitution as their top priority, not to defend the country and the top priority.

As I've said time and time again, students won't be press-ganged into joining the military but will do so at their own free will.

Would you point me to such a clause in the bill?  How do you make sure that these recruiters would disregard practices that they commonly use on city streets?  I think you putting the ideal ahead of the reality.

[Colin]

Has anyone heard from Yates lately? He just seems to have diappeared and we need him to vote on this.

[jerusalemcar5]

Has anyone heard from Yates lately? He just seems to have diappeared and we need him to vote on this.

This vote should be closed.  Is it legally mandated that it stay open?  Yates has been given ample time, but he is away and if is no legal reason to wait for his vote we shoould just declare this a failed override.  (It doesn't matter anyway since two justices have already said this is unconstitutional).

[Emsworth]

Is it legally mandated that it stay open?

Senate rules state that a vote may last for a maximum of 7 days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those statements are of no legal effect. They may, after all, change once the justices have heard full arguments.

[jerusalemcar5]

Is it legally mandated that it stay open?

Senate rules state that a vote may last for a maximum of 7 days.

Thank you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those statements are of no legal effect. They may, after all, change once the justices have heard full arguments.
[/quote]

Obviously they have no legal standing, I am just providing it as further evidence of the constitutionality of the this bill.

[TomC]

Is it legally mandated that it stay open?

Senate rules state that a vote may last for a maximum of 7 days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those statements are of no legal effect. They may, after all, change once the justices have heard full arguments.

Very true

[Democratic Hawk]

Given that our national defense is, arguably, the primary role of federal government.

This is the "George W. Bush Philosophy" which is that defending our country comes before all other matters.  The "Founding Fathers Philosophy" is that the Constitution and the freedom of our people come first.  The latter philosophy was largely ignored as time went on in the U.S. and we all know where we are now.  I would hope that Atlasia would not venture down the same path and that the senators would not ignore their oath to uphold the constitution as their top priority, not to defend the country and the top priority.

Likening the Hawk's 'philosophy' to that of George W. Bush, now that's a first

'Hawk'

[WMS]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

Its mostly a carry over from American law, IIRC since we have not specifically stated anything differently. The current system, therefore, is that the states, which would carry over to regions, run and fund the public universities. As I have said though if anyone can point out something on the contrary then there is no reason to believe that there is federal funding or control of these institutions.

Thanks for your reply, and Senator Hawk dug up that section of the Constitution, remember? The legal status of this issue seems unclear...

Well Dave is wrong. Here this is from the Wiki article on Public Universities:

In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than a dozen. This is a direct result of the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Acts, which gave each eligible state 30,000 acres (120 km²) of federal land upon which to establish educational institutions. States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. It has never been determined whether the U.S. Constitution would allow the federal government to establish a federal university system; the only federally chartered universities that currently exist are those under the auspices of the U.S. military, such as West Point, the Naval Academy and the United States Air Force Academy.

Just as another example as well and to rebut Mr. Hawk's statement concerning the lack of ability for state universities to fund themselves just as an example Pennsylvania State University's annual endowment is 1.2 billion dollars as of 2006. This is from the Wikipedia article here.

Thanks for your responses, both to me and to Dave. If the Atlasian federal government has no role in universities at all...why are any federal funds being spent on it?

Thanks for clarifying the situation with regard to public universities and their funding

Nevertheless, given that most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities would they receive any federal funding at all or not?. Because if they do, and they refuse to allow the military to recruit on their premises, then perhaps the path to take would be to remove what federal funding they do receive since the withdrawal of such federal funding is unlikely to have a detrimental impact (which, of course, was my concern)

This is what I have been recommending to this Senate since the beginning if they want this statue to be constitutional.

OK, I back this proposal now.

[jerusalemcar5]

Given that our national defense is, arguably, the primary role of federal government.

This is the "George W. Bush Philosophy" which is that defending our country comes before all other matters.  The "Founding Fathers Philosophy" is that the Constitution and the freedom of our people come first.  The latter philosophy was largely ignored as time went on in the U.S. and we all know where we are now.  I would hope that Atlasia would not venture down the same path and that the senators would not ignore their oath to uphold the constitution as their top priority, not to defend the country and the top priority.

Likening the Hawk's 'philosophy' to that of George W. Bush, now that's a first

'Hawk'

Well you guys do agree on that point .

[© tweed]

If Yates doesn't vote, this can't pass

[jerusalemcar5]

If Yates doesn't vote, this can't pass

Tomorrow is last day! Yay!

[MasterJedi]

If Yates doesn't vote, this can't pass

Tomorrow is last day! Yay!

Yes, you're right. Tomorrow is the last day.

[jerusalemcar5]

And of course I'll seek a veto override. Another horrible decision Mr. President.

At 11:10:23 this morning it should be finished.

[MasterJedi]

And of course I'll seek a veto override. Another horrible decision Mr. President.

At 11:10:23 this morning it should be finished.

7 days open, it started May 31 so you're wrong.

[jerusalemcar5]

And of course I'll seek a veto override. Another horrible decision Mr. President.

At 11:10:23 this morning it should be finished.

7 days open, it started May 31 so you're wrong.

My bad, I misinterpreted the post.  Yes, June 7th is the final day.

[Q]

Seven days having passed since this veto override was motioned, and without the requisite number of votes, the President's veto stands.

[MasterJedi]

Seven days having passed since this veto override was motioned, and without the requisite number of votes, the President's veto stands.

If Yates would have voted for this I will be so pissed.

[jerusalemcar5]

HALLELUJAH!! THE CONSTITUTION AND FREEDOM STAND STRONG!  IT'S A GLORIOUS DAY FOR ATLASIA!