Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
18 or Diploma question as it relates to States vs. Federal Rights?
Obviously the GOP stance is that all things concerning education should fall under the purview of the states. No Federal minimum standard, no Federal intrusion into education because this is a purely State issue.
So suppose you have Joe. Joe spends the first 20 years of his life living in one state. That state allows him to drop out of high school on his 16th birthday. Joe decides that he's going to do that because he has a job down at the burger joint that pays all of his bills, and he doesn't need a diploma for that job. Heck, if he sticks with this company, by the time he is 30, he'll be a manager, and those dudes are RICH.
When Joe is 20, his grandma in another state gets very ill and asks Joe to move in with her to help take care of her. Joe does, and lives with her until she dies. Grandma leaves Joe her house and Joe decides to stay in his new home state.
But the state that Joe's grandma (and now Joe) live in, requires every student to either get a diploma or stay in school til they are 18. In response, all of the local employers require a minimum of a high school diploma. Joe can't even get hired at a burger joint in his new town, but he doesn't want to move because grandma's house is here.
Now Joe can't pay his bills because he can't get a job, and it's going to take at least 6 months for him to get a GED. He ends up turning to welfare to keep his utilities paid and buy food. Welfare, as we all know, is funded by the taxpayers of the state that the recipients live in, with some federal tax money kicked in.
So whose problem is this? Joe did what his state said he had to do- went to school til he was 16. Joe didn't break any laws by moving to another state. The businesses in the second state are free to set the requirements for employment as they see fit. But the taxpayers of the second state are stuck supporting Joe while he retrains to meet a minimum standard that wasn't enforced in his home state. Should the state with the lower requirement reimburse the state that ends up carrying those people who weren't sufficiently educated enough to support themselves when they moved across state lines?
Is education really an issue that can be considered to be exclusive to each state?
@Happy, so should we take it one step further and say that the second state should be allowed to force Joe to move back to the state where he is qualified to work?
@ Return- No, no one can force a person to obtain a diploma, but if a minimum standard exists, then there will be a percentage of the people who will meet that standard and no more. Failing to meet even that minimum standard certainly shifts the burden of one's circumstances back onto the individual, but when someone does what they are required to do and it turns out not to be enough, who is at fault? The individual or the low standard. I'd simply like a guarantee that your state's poor standards aren't going to someday be my state's financial problems is all. Since we are a loose collection of states rather than a nation, that is.
5 Answers
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
So what is the point here? The government cannot mandate that everyone get a diploma. Your rather bizarre justification for federal control of the public school system doesn't make any sense.
And your additional comment makes even less sense. We are a republic. You need to read up on that minor detail. One other thing. Neither the states nor the federal government have rights. They have powers. Rights apply to individuals, not abstract entities such as a "state." The Constitution specifically states that those powers not given to the federal government are left to the states or the individual.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Technically, yes, education is one of the powers not specified in the constitution. However, it is important to remember that the Founders did not live in a country that had education requirements for most jobs, or even a national education system. In their wisdom, the founders left these powers open to debate, and, more importantly, they made sure to specify that federal law trumps state law in all constitutionally-acceptable cases. The GOP is currently reeling rightward, and ignores the practical and social nessecity of a national education standard. The government could very well make a law requiring that states keep their students in school until graduation or age 18, and this makes both economic and legal sense. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that education is a federal power, but it doesn't say anywhere that it isn't, so one can expect President Obama to push for law mandating exactly that, as he said he would in the State of the Union Address.
Source(s): www.constitution.org State of the Union Address, 1/24/12 - Anonymous9 years ago
Good question, and you do have an excellent point. That is why I do not promote state government education.
I promote nationwide private education, which in no way can you form a legitimate argument against.
- TylerLv 49 years ago
acctually, i don't believe that the states should have those rights either... it boils down to personal soveriegnty. that is, in the end where the power lies.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
foo... you be trippin if uz thinks i be readin all that jive
