What is happening in our Public Schools? And can happen in Home-schooling and Private Schools

By Sue Long

Excerpts taken from Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite Education by Alex Newman

If something doesn't change, most American K-12 school children will be taught using dubious, federally backed national education “standards” commonly called Common Core. Even though it is being sold as “excellence in education,”
“raising the bar,” and getting America’s children “ready for the workforce” it is designed for just the opposite. Education and policy experts have blasted the standards themselves, the centralization and federalization of schooling, the long-term agenda behind the plan, and the nefarious tactics used to advance it.

The scheme is being foisted on state governments all across the country with a combination of taxpayer-funded bribes, outright deception, and federal bludgeoning. With the federal government handing out massive grants only to state governments that comply, some 45 states and Washington, D.C. have already signed up, and the others, which includes Virginia, are flirting with various elements of the scheme.

Even Virginia and home-schoolers and private schools — may find themselves ensnared in the program due to national testing, college admission requirements, and more.

Among the most common criticisms levelled at the English and Language Arts Common Core standards is the emphasis on reading dry, technical writing as opposed to literary classics. And, even the classics have been replaced with books promoting a socialist agenda. It will leave students unable to think for themselves.

Opponents have been quick to lambaste the guidelines, and standards do not compare well with existing standards, forcing existing standards to be watered down. Core Mathematics Standards are written to reflect very low expectations. As for history, there is nothing in Common Core about being able to explain why America fought for independence from Britain, or how the Constitution fulfils the ideal outlined in the Declaration of Independence of protecting God-given rights. And for science, it will force students to learn a steady stream of controversial propaganda on everything from the theory of evolution to largely debunked theories advanced by UN global-warming alarmists about supposed human impacts on “climate change.

Common Core is copyrighted and cannot be altered by anyone other than the owners of the copyright. As such, any special interest group that finds favour with those in charge will be able to gain instant access to America’s students.

Concerned parents, meanwhile, will be left with few-to-no options to prevent it.

Common Core is an agenda to essentially brainwash students. Much of the agenda involves what is euphemistically referred to as preparing students to live in a “global community.” Aside from the blatant propaganda and the obvious political agenda in the standards, however, the real problem is in the centralization. Even if the standards were radically revised to be better, or had been devised by people with whom one may agree with politically, they can always be changed. Government should not have such power in the first place. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing it.

Totalitarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin and everywhere in between have always sought to centralize and control education. The reason is simple: Whoever molds the minds of the youth can eventually dominate the population, even if it takes a generation or two. That is why tyrants in recent centuries have demanded compulsory, government-led education.

Hitler made clear that he wanted to use “education” as a tool to mold German children in accordance with the National Socialist regime’s despotic and murderous ideology. So did Stalin, and numerous other infamous tyrants and mass murderers.

As Karl Marx noted in his Communist Manifesto, government-controlled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism.

Common Core is actually a step toward achieving a long time goal of the United Nations and its supporters: a one-world education system. The UN, has long sought to harmonize global educational standards. The goal is not education but the production of compliant, dependent, uneducated citizens. This is the citizenry needed to implement the United Nation’s

Agenda 21 with the help of UNESCO’s Education for All program. Not surprisingly, Common Core and Education for All are very similar because Bill Gates has been involved with both and is a proponent of UN-directed education.”

Without a significant change in course, it is only a matter of time before the nationalized education scheme ensnares virtually every student in America. Home schoolers, private-schooled children, and even kids in states that have refused to
participate will likely all be impacted by the standards, sometimes without even being aware of it. Consider, for example, the rush by virtually all major publishers to align their textbooks with Common Core. Even students here in Virginia may ultimately be forced to learn from the same set of standards.

But, people are starting to wake up. On the Left and on the Right, criticism of Common Core standards, methods, and the entire agenda continues to grow louder and louder. From the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute to the establishment’s
liberal-oriented Brookings Institution, the scheme is coming under assault. Increasing numbers of teachers, experts, and more are speaking out, too.

For Online Schooling using American principles: http://www.freedomproject.com/

For more information: https://www.jbs.org/webstore/download-the-new-american-august-19-2013

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education

The Committee for Constitutional Government,

Post Office Box 972, Gloucester, VA 23061

Pictured above is Congressman Rob Wittman and several members of the Yorktown Fife and Drum Corp. 

Related articles

• State Board of Education Approves A-F School Grading System
• Is a Constitutional Convention a Good Idea? By; Sue M Long
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on Virginia Opportunity Educational Institution Ruling
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 40 - On The Motivations And Authority Of The Founding Fathers

FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 46. The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared

From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline.

Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever. It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens.

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.

The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other.

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

PUBLIUS

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums In Virginia.  It's A Revolutionary Concept.

Anti Federalist Papers No. 44 – What Congress Can Do; What A State Can Not

A writer in the Pennsylvania Packet, under the signature of A Freeman, has lately entered the lists as another champion for the proposed constitution. Particularly he has endeavored to show that our apprehensions of this plan of government being a consolidation of the United States into one government, and not a confederacy of sovereign independent states, is entirely groundless; and it must be acknowledged that he has advocated this cause with as much show of reason, perhaps, as the subject will admit.

The words states, several states, and united states are, he observes, frequently mentioned in the constitution. And this is an argument that their separate sovereignty and independence cannot be endangered! He has enumerated a variety of matters which, he says, congress cannot do; and which the states, in their individual capacity, must or may do, and thence infers their sovereignty and independence. In some of these, however, I apprehend he is a little mistaken.

1. "Congress cannot train the militia. " This is not strictly true. For by the 1st Article they are empowered "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining" them; and tho' the respective states are said to have the authority of training the militia, it must be "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. " In this business, therefore, they will be no other than subalterns under Congress, to execute their orders; which, if they shall neglect to do, Congress will have constitutional powers to provide for, by any other means they shall think proper. They shall have power to declare what description of persons shall compose the militia; to appoint the stated times and places for exercising them; to compel personal attendance, whether when called for into actual service, or on other occasions, under what penalties they shall think proper, without regard to scruples of conscience or any other consideration. Their executive officer may march and countermarch them from one extremity of the state to the other - and all this without so much as consulting the legislature of the particular states to which they belong! Where then is that boasted security against the annihilation of the state governments, arising from "the powerful military support" they will have from their militia?

2. "Congress cannot enact laws for the inspection of the produce of the country. " Neither is this strictly true. Their power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying this power (among others vested in them by the constitution) into execution," most certainly extends to the enacting of inspection laws. The particular states may indeed propose such laws to them; but it is expressly declared, in the lst article, that "all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. "

3. "The several states can prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves into their own ports. " Nay, not even this can they do, "without the consent of Congress," as is expressly declared in the close of the lst article. The duty which Congress may, and it is probable will lay on the importation of slaves, will form a branch of their revenue. But this impost, as well as all others, "must be uniform throughout the United States. " Congress therefore cannot consent that one state should impose an additional duty on this article of commerce, unless all other states should do the same; and it is not very likely that some of the states will ever ask this favor.

4. "Congress cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals; the making or regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erecting ferries; building lighthouses, etc. " In one case, which may very frequently happen, this proposition also fails. For if the river, canal, road, bridge, ferry, etc. , be common to two states, or a matter in which they may be both concerned, and consequently must both concur, then the interference and consent of Congress becomes absolutely necessary, since it is declared in the constitution that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state. "

5. "The elections of the President, Vice President, senators and representatives are exclusively in the hands of the states - even as to filling vacancies. " This, in one important part, is not true. For, by the 2d article, "in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, etc. , both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a president shall be elected. "

But no such election is provided for by the constitution, till the return of the periodical election at the expiration of the four years for which the former president was chosen. And thus may the great powers of this supreme magistrate of the United States be exercised, for years together, by a man who, perhaps, never had one vote of the people for any office of government in his life.

6. "Congress cannot interfere with the constitution of any state. " This has been often said, but alas, with how little truth - since it is declared in the 6th article that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, etc. , shall be the supreme law of the land, and every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. "

But, sir, in order to form a proper judgment of the probable effects of this plan of general government on the sovereignties of the several states, it is necessary also to take a view of what Congress may, constitutionally, do and of what the states may not do. This matter, however, the above writer has thought proper to pass over in silence. I would therefore beg leave in some measure, to supply this omission; and if in anything I should appear to be mistaken I hope he will take the same liberty with me that I have done with him - he will correct my mistake.

1. Congress may, even in time of peace, raise an army of 100,000 men, whom they may canton through the several states, and billet out on the inhabitants, in order to serve as necessary instruments in executing their decrees.

2. Upon the inhabitants of any state proving refractory to the will of Congress, or upon any other pretense whatsoever, Congress may can out even all the militia of as many states as they think proper, and keep them in actual service, without pay, as long as they please, subject to the utmost rigor of military discipline, corporal punishment, and death itself not excepted.

3. Congress may levy and collect a capitation or poll tax, to what amount they shall think proper; of which the poorest taxable in the state must pay as much as the richest.

4. Congress may, under the sanction of that clause in the constitution which empowers them to regulate commerce, authorize the importation of slaves, even into those states where this iniquitous trade is or may be prohibited by their laws or constitutions.

5. Congress may, under the sanction of that clause which empowers them to lay and collect duties (as distinct from imposts and excises) impose so heavy a stamp duty on newspapers and other periodical publications, as shall effectually prevent all necessary information to the people through these useful channels of intelligence.

6. Congress may, by imposing a duty on foreigners coming into the country, check the progress of its population. And after a few years they may prohibit altogether, not only the emigration of foreigners into our country, but also that of our own citizens to any other country.

7. Congress may withhold, as long as they think proper, all information respecting their proceedings from the people.

8. Congress may order the elections for members of their own body, in the several states, to be held at what times, in what places, and in what manner they shall think proper. Thus, in Pennsylvania, they may order the elections to be held in the middle of winter, at the city of Philadelphia; by which means the inhabitants of nine-tenths of the state will be effectually (tho' constitutionally) deprived of the exercise of their right of suffrage.

9. Congress may, in their courts of judicature, abolish trial by jury in civil cases altogether; and even in criminal cases, trial by a jury of the vicinage is not secured by the constitution. A crime committed at Fort Pitt may be tried by a jury of the citizens of Philadelphia.

10. Congress may, if they shall think it for the "general welfare," establish an uniformity in religion throughout the United States. Such establishments have been thought necessary, and have accordingly taken place in almost all the other countries in the world, and will no doubt be thought equally necessary in this.

11. Though I believe it is not generally so understood, yet certain it is, that Congress may emit paper money, and even make it a legal tender throughout the United States; and, what is still worse, may, after it shall have depreciated in the hands of the people, call it in by taxes, at any rate of depreciation (compared with gold and silver) which they may think proper. For though no state can emit bills of credit, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, yet the Congress themselves are under no constitutional restraints on these points.

12. The number of representatives which shall compose the principal branch of Congress is so small as to occasion general complaint. Congress, however, have no power to increase the number of representatives, but may reduce it even to one fifth part of the present arrangement.

13. On the other hand, no state can call forth its militia even to suppress any insurrection or domestic violence which may take place among its own citizens. This power is, by the constitution, vested in Congress.

14. No state can compel one of its own citizens to pay a debt due to a citizen of a neighboring state. Thus a Jersey-man will be unable to recover the price of a turkey sold in the Philadelphia market, if the purchaser shall be inclined to dispute, without commencing an action in one of the federal courts.

15. No state can encourage its own manufactures either by prohibiting or even laying a duty on the importation of foreign articles.

16. No state can give relief to insolvent debtors, however distressing their situation may be, since Congress will have the exclusive right of establishing uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; and the particular states are expressly prohibited from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

DELIBERATOR

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.

Gloucester’s Sensibility Speed Bump (The uncensored version)

Gloucester County, Virginia’s Board of Supervisors seems to be headed in a more sensible direction than it has been for many years.  If this governing body continues to make decisions on the side of what makes sense things will become better for Gloucester as a whole. However, there is one significant area where the governing body has little or no ability to apply sensibility or even successfully encourage it at this point.  That area is the Gloucester County public education system. 

 

The School Board is also a governing body whose primary function is to oversee the application and function of an effective public education system.  Many sensible thinkers believe the fateful aspects of Gloucester’s public education system stem primarily from the fact that Dr. Howard Benjamin (Ben) Kiser was hired and allowed to manipulate the School Board into a tool to facilitate his own aspirations, desires and gains.

 

The Kiser’s, record in Gloucester includes; ignoring negative disciplinary trends within the school system; failing to ensure the effective administration of mathematics at Gloucester’s only public high school; creating an atmosphere of un-trust and low morale among Gloucester’s teaching staff; turning Gloucester’s public school system and School Board into political tools; creating animosity and dysfunction between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board; disregarding input from the Gloucester Community after a tornado partially destroyed Page Middle School; allowing the unnecessary and unwarranted demolition of needed and usable infrastructure; excessive and disproportionate spending; creating biased and non-transparent citizen committees; sending Freedom of Information Act and Records Retention Act protected information to more than one of his private email accounts and failing to provide such emails in response to FOIA requests; manipulating Commonwealth of Virginia and Gloucester County Professional Service procurement procedures; placing his personal gain and ambitions above administering a quality public education program; failing to examine and correct significantly flawed accountability procedures intended to protect approximately 1.4 million dollars annually in school activities funds; and the list goes on and on. 

 

Now the rest of the Commonwealth of Virginia will have the opportunity to witness the workings of a Virginia K-12 public education administration failure as The Kiser now becomes Director of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents.  This non-governmental position will enhance his ability to distort the sensible mind sets of public school Superintendents in every district throughout the Commonwealth. Well done Dr. Howard Benjamin (Ben) Kiser.  Well done.  As a member of the sensible thinking Gloucester Community I thank you for the excessive debt, the unfocused School Board, the disruptive school environments, the inadequate teaching at Gloucester High School and all of the other many wonderful knife in the back gifts you are leaving Gloucester County as you continue your journey to self gratification utopia.

 

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Our Note:

We could not have said it better ourselves.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Officials Circumvent Discovery Throughout The County
• Gloucester County School Board allows illegal use of government vehicles?
• Page Middle School; Wrongful use of Public Body?
• Gloucester, VA Public School Officials Speak Out - Corruption At Highest Levels?
• Notes on Gloucester County Joint Board of Supervisors and School Board February Meeting
• Gloucester, VA A Letter From The Kiser, School Board Superintendant

Federalist Papers No. 44. Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States

From the New York Packet. Friday, January 25, 1788.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

A FIFTH class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:

1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility."

The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible.

The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance, also, the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head; and as far as the former might prevent an inconvenient remittance of gold and silver to the central mint for recoinage, the end can be as well attained by local mints established under the general authority.

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.

2. "No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

The restraint on the power of the States over imports and exports is enforced by all the arguments which prove the necessity of submitting the regulation of trade to the federal councils. It is needless, therefore, to remark further on this head, than that the manner in which the restraint is qualified seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion. The remaining particulars of this clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious, or have been so fully developed, that they may be passed over without remark.

The SIXTH and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest.

1. Of these the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the FORM of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?

There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.

Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "EXPRESSLY" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction. It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted.

Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.

Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made.

Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the Union.

If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed.

2. "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor.

In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.

In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.

In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others.

In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.

3. "The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions.

Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution. The election of the President and Senate will depend, in all cases, on the legislatures of the several States. And the election of the House of Representatives will equally depend on the same authority in the first instance; and will, probably, forever be conducted by the officers, and according to the laws, of the States.

4. Among the provisions for giving efficacy to the federal powers might be added those which belong to the executive and judiciary departments: but as these are reserved for particular examination in another place, I pass them over in this.

We have now reviewed, in detail, all the articles composing the sum or quantity of power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, and are brought to this undeniable conclusion, that no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary objects of the Union. The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved.

PUBLIUS

Learn more about American history.  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.

Related articles

• Federalist Papers No. 42. The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 21 Why The Articles Failed
• Anti Federalist Papers No 12 - How WIll The New Government Raise Money?
• Federalist Papers No. 32. The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation)
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 30-31 - A Virginia Anti-Federalist On The Issue Of Taxation
• Federalist Papers No 5 - Dangers From Foreign Force And Influence

Governor McAuliffe & Board of Education Announce 2014 Virginia Index of Performance Awards

Colorado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Awards Recognize High-Achieving Schools & Divisions

Governor Terry McAuliffe and the Board of Education announced today that 212 schools and four school divisions earned 2014 Virginia Index of Performance (VIP) awards for advanced learning and achievement. The VIP incentive program recognizes schools and divisions that exceed minimum state and federal accountability standards and achieve excellence goals established by the governor and the board.

“I am pleased to congratulate Virginia’s teachers, principals, superintendents and other educators whose commitment to innovation and excellence have made the Commonwealth’s schools leaders among our economic competitors,” McAuliffe said. “The educators and support staff in these award-winning schools — and in all of our public schools — have dedicated their careers to building brighter futures for our young people and providing pathways for success in a 21^st Century economy. I look forward to visiting as many of these schools as possible and celebrating their accomplishments.”   

The schools and school divisions earning 2014 VIP awards — which are based on student achievement and other performance indicators during 2012-2013 — include:

·        Five schools that earned the Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence;

·        One school division and 71 schools that earned the Board of Education Excellence Award; and

·        Three school divisions and 136 schools that earned the Board of Education Distinguished Achievement Award.

2014 Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence

Five schools — Carson Middle, Longfellow Middle and Rocky Run Middle in Fairfax County; Short Pump Middle in Henrico County; and Kemps Landing Magnet in Virginia Beach — earned the Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence, the highest VIP award.  Kemps Landing Magnet has won the Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence every year since the VIP program began in 2008. This year’s award was Rocky Run Middle’s fifth consecutive Governor’s Award.

“Schools and divisions that earn the Governor’s Award for Education Excellence promote the well-being — as well as the academic achievement — of every student,” Secretary of Education Anne Holton said.

To earn the Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence, schools and school divisions must meet all state and federal achievement benchmarks and achieve all applicable excellence goals for elementary reading, enrollment in Algebra I by the eighth grade, enrollment in college-level courses, high school graduation, attainment of advanced diplomas, increased attainment of career and industry certifications, and, if applicable, participation in the Virginia Preschool Initiative. Schools and school divisions earn bonus points for other performance measures, including the Governor’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Scorecard.

2014 Board of Education Excellence Awards

Falls Church Public Schools and 71 schools earned the Board of Education Excellence Award, the second-tier honor in the VIP program. These schools also met all state and federal accountability benchmarks and made significant progress toward goals for increased student achievement and expanded educational opportunities set by the board.

“Virginia’s accountability system includes recognitions for academic excellence and progress,” Board of Education President Chris Braunlich said. “The achievement of the educators and students in these award-winning schools is especially noteworthy given the increased rigor of the commonwealth’s academic standards and assessments.”

The schools receiving Board of Education Excellence Awards are as follows:

·        Albemarle County — Virginia L. Murray Elementary

·        Arlington County — Arlington Science Focus School, Arlington Traditional, Ashlawn Elementary, Jamestown Elementary, McKinley Elementary, Nottingham Elementary, Taylor Elementary, Tuckahoe Elementary and Williamsburg Middle

·        Chesapeake — Grassfield High

·        Chesterfield County — Bettie Weaver Elementary, Greenfield Elementary, Midlothian Middle, Robious Elementary, W.W. Gordon Elementary and Winterpock Elementary

·        Fairfax County — Archer Elementary, Canterbury Woods Elementary, Chesterbrook Elementary, Churchill Road Elementary, Colvin Run Elementary, Cooper Middle, Floris Elementary, Frost Middle, Greenbriar West Elementary, Haycock Elementary, Hunters Woods Elementary School for the Arts and Sciences, Keene Mill Elementary, Kilmer Middle, Langley High, Madison High, Oak Hill Elementary, Oakton Elementary, Sangster Elementary, Spring Hill Elementary, Thomas Jefferson High, Thoreau Middle and Wolftrap Elementary

·        Falls Church — George Mason High, Mount Daniel School and Thomas Jefferson Elementary

·        Hampton — Armstrong Elementary

·        Henrico County — Glen Allen Elementary, Holman Middle, Mills E. Godwin High, Nuckols Farm Elementary, Pocahontas Middle, Rivers Edge Elementary, Shady Grove Elementary, Short Pump Elementary, Tuckahoe Elementary and Twin Hickory Elementary

·        Loudoun County — Emerick Elementary and Round Hill Elementary

·        Montgomery County — Gilbert Linkous Elementary, Harding Avenue Elementary and Kipps Elementary

·        Prince William County — Cedar Point Elementary, J.W. Alvey Elementary, Mary G. Porter Traditional, T. Clay Wood Elementary and Thurgood Marshall Elementary

·        Roanoke — Crystal Spring Elementary

·        Roanoke County — Cave Spring High and Hidden Valley Middle

·        Stafford County — Garrisonville Elementary

·        Virginia Beach — John B. Dey Elementary, North Landing Elementary and Old Donation Center

·        West Point — West Point High

2014 Board of Education Distinguished Achievement Awards

The Board of Education Distinguished Achievement Award was earned by three divisions — Poquoson, Lexington and West Point — and 136 schools that met all state and federal benchmarks and made progress toward the goals of the governor and the board.

The schools receiving Distinguished Achievement awards are as follows:

·        Albemarle County — Joseph T. Henley Middle, Meriwether Lewis Elementary and Mortimer Y. Sutherland Middle

·        Arlington County — Long Branch Elementary, Swanson Middle and Yorktown High

·        Augusta County — Riverheads High

·        Botetourt County — Breckinridge Elementary

·        Charlottesville — Burnley-Moran Elementary, Greenbrier Elementary and Venable Elementary

·        Chesapeake City — Butts Road Intermediate, Butts Road Primary, Great Bridge Intermediate Great Bridge Middle, Great Bridge Primary and Southeastern Elementary,

·        Chesterfield County — Cosby High, Enon Elementary, Grange Hall Elementary, Midlothian High and Woolridge Elementary

·        Danville — Galileo Magnet High

·        Fairfax County — Fairfax Villa Elementary, Flint Hill Elementary, Forestville Elementary, Franklin Middle, Great Falls Elementary, Hunt Valley Elementary, Irving Middle, Kent Gardens Elementary, Lake Braddock Secondary, Mantua Elementary, McLean High, Mosby Woods Elementary, Oakton High, Poplar Tree Elementary, Robinson Secondary, Sherman Elementary, South County High, Springfield Estates Elementary, Stratford Landing Elementary, Vienna Elementary, Wakefield Forest Elementary, West Springfield Elementary, West Springfield High, Westbriar Elementary, White Oaks Elementary, Willow Springs Elementary and Woodson High

·        Fauquier County — C. Hunter Ritchie Elementary

·        Gloucester County— Bethel Elementary

·        Goochland County — Randolph Elementary

·        Hanover County — Chickahominy Middle, Cool Spring Elementary, Kersey Creek Elementary, Pearson's Corner Elementary, Pole Green Elementary, South Anna Elementary and Washington-Henry Elementary

·        Henrico County — Colonial Trail Elementary, Echo Lake Elementary, Gayton Elementary, Glen Allen High, Pemberton Elementary, Springfield Park Elementary and Three Chopt Elementary

·        Henry County — Rich Acres Elementary

·        Lexington — Lylburn Downing Middle

·        Loudoun County — Ashburn Elementary, Belmont Ridge Middle, Belmont Station Elementary, Blue Ridge Middle, Briar Woods High, Eagle Ridge Middle, Farmwell Station Middle, J. Michael Lunsford Middle, Kenneth W.Culbert Elementary, Legacy Elementary, Liberty Elementary, Lincoln Elementary, Little River Elementary, Loudoun Valley High, Lowes Island Elementary, Lucketts Elementary, Newton-Lee Elementary, Pinebrook Elementary, Rosa Lee Carter Elementary, Sanders Corner Elementary and Stone Hill Middle

·        Newport News — Deer Park Elementary

·        Norfolk — Larchmont Elementary

·        Pittsylvania County — Tunstall High

·        Poquoson — Poquoson High

·        Prince George County — L.L. Beazley Elementary

·        Prince William County — A. Henderson Elementary, Bristow Run Elementary, Buckland Mills Elementary, Gainesville Middle, Louise A. Benton Middle, Mountain View Elementary, Old Bridge Elementary, Pennington School, Piney Branch Elementary and Victory Elementary

·        Richmond — Richmond Community High

·        Roanoke County — Cave Spring Elementary, Cave Spring Middle, Clearbrook Elementary, Fort Lewis Elementary, Glenvar Middle, Hidden Valley High, Oak Grove Elementary and Penn Forest Elementary

·        Rockingham County — East Rockingham High and Peak View Elementary

·        Salem — South Salem Elementary

·        Scott County — Yuma Elementary

·        Stafford County — Colonial Forge High and Rodney E. Thompson Middle

·        Virginia Beach — Great Neck Middle, Hermitage Elementary, Kingston Elementary, New Castle Elementary, Princess Anne Elementary, Red Mill Elementary, Thoroughgood Elementary and Trantwood Elementary

·        Washington County — High Point Elementary

·        Williamsburg-James City County — Lois Hornsby Middle, Matoaka Elementary and Matthew Whaley Elementary

·        Wise County — Eastside High 

·        York County — Coventry Elementary, Mount Vernon Elementary and Tabb Middle

“I congratulate the superintendents, principals, teachers and other educators in all of the divisions and schools that earned VIP awards this year,” said Superintendent of Public Instruction Patricia I. Wright, who proposed the awards program in 2007 as a means of rewarding high-achieving schools and divisions. “These educators — and thousands of others in schools across this commonwealth — dedicate every day to challenging students and helping them to achieve their goals.”

More information about the VIP incentive program for schools and school divisions is available on the VDOE website: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/statistics_reports/va_index_performance_awards/index.shtml

Related articles

• Hampton Roads Leaders Applaud Governor McAuliffe
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Recipients of the 2014 Governor's Volunteerism and Community Service Awards
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Environmental Excellence Award Winners
• Governor McAuliffe Marks 100 Days of His Administration, Launches 100Days.Virginia.gov
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Launch of Data.Virginia
• Governor McAuliffe Announces 2014 Governor's Challenge Champions in Economics and Personal Finance