Education Sec. Miguel Cardona Thinks Reagan Said, ‘We’re From the Government. We’re Here to Help!’
Can we *please* destroy the department of education?
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona gave us a great reason to destroy his department. The dude cannot even correctly quote one of the most famous presidential quotes of all time.
Then again, Cardona is a leftist. They love to twist everything to fit their agenda, even when it makes them look like an idiot.
It’s even worse when you’re head of the education (indoctrination) department.
No smart person would ever think Reagan ever said anything positive about government.
Cardona said, “I think it was President Reagan who said, ‘We’re from the government. We’re here to help!'”
Reagan ACKSHUALLY said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona:
"I think it was President Reagan who said, 'We're from the government. We're here to help!'"
Here's the actual quote:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." pic.twitter.com/Hgxpt2Xdoh
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 27, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There are tens of thousands of people that will not get this Mary.. Not gonna tell them.. SMH
It’s not Miguel’s fault.
That’s what his teacher learned him.
It sounds like the secretary of education doesn’t have a very good education. So why was he picked for a job he was not qualified for?
Well, you don’t need an education to know the answer to that.
Failure of education, or knowing lie in the vein of 1984?
Ah, but you assume the Secretary of Education was hired to improve education. As a dedicated hard core leftist, he is imminently qualified for the job he was actually hired for: to expand government bureaucracy, undermine the authority of parents over their children and improve the effectiveness of the leftist indoctrination being performed in government schools.
With those actual goals in mind and his demonstrated effectiveness at them, he probably deserves a raise.
Did this guy use to work at the NYT or CNN?
Another box checker.
He comes from a long line of box checkers.
He’s the box of Crackerjack without the prize.
At least he isn’t wearing a dress, I guess…..
The Federal Department of Education is an un-Constitutional abomination that needs to be done away with – completely.
And Miguel Cordona is a friggin retard. He needs to go back to school. I would say that he should be restarted in about the 5th grade, though I haven’t seen him attempt any math problems and he might well need to go back to 3rd grade.
It used to be that anyone who said something so stupid in public would be completely ashamed and would hide away, never being seen again. Nowadays, these insane idiots seem to revel in their ignorance and stupidity. They have a fetish for rolling around in their own sh*t … in public! It’s very, very weird, to put it mildly.
It’s not unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly authorizes congress to establish whichever departments it thinks appropriate. But it should certainly be shut down. Reagan promised to do so, but was unable to; the next Republican president should at least make a serious attempt at it.
Only within the powers that the federal government is given.
The federal government is not allowed to spend money on anything it wants, willy nilly. There are limits to its power and it is not allowed to spend money on things that are not within its powers. Education is a state issue, not a federal one. The Department of Education is un-Constitutional. States have their own departments, if they choose.
Yeah, yeah, that pesky 10th Amendment thing..
Federal subsidies to education are made pursuant to one or another of Congress’s enumerated powers, at least as currently interpreted.
But the department is certainly constitutional. There is no limit to the number or subject matter of departments Congress may create. Even if every bit of legislation on education were struck down, the department itself could continue for as long as Congress wanted it.
Subject matter? There certainly is. Congress – the federal government – is not allowed to form departments covering issues that are not in the purview of the federal government. This is pretty simple.
if the Constitution does not empower the federal government to do something then the federal government cannot spend any money doing that thing – not even “studying” it. What possible justification can any entity have to spend money on a department built around something that that entity is prohibited from dealing with? I mean … really.
That is not true. Congress can create a Department of Silly Walks, if it likes. Or a Department of Ice Cream.
You’re right. There is no enumerated power for the majority of regulatory bureaucrats. The 10th Amendment specifically restricts the central government’s activities to those enumerated:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If Milhouse wants to prove his ridiculous thesis, he has to show us is: (1) a clause in the original Constitution that gives the federal government anything to say about education or a later amendment extending its powers to education, and (2) the clause in the Constitution that says Congress can establish departments it wants—regardless of enumerated powers.
We should also remind him that the Department of Education and its sister unconstitutional bureaucracies have regulatory (that is, lawmaking power) in direct contravention of the Constitution’s bar on Congress delegating its lawmaking powers (in this case to Executive branch bureaucracies). Finally, the bureaucracies violate separation of powers because they make laws, have their own enforcement arms, and their own judges. All these usurpations are by “progressive” design to give the illusion of due process without actually bothering to have it. However, Millhouse is likely immune to facts.
The Constitutionally of departments is under the “General Welfare” clause which states:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
It is clearly established that such agencies – including the DOE – can be created and financed because of that “General Welfare” clause.
As to the regulations imposed by these agencies, that is the so called “Chevron Defense” where a forty year old case called “Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council,” the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable.
Therefore the power of the agency is granted explicitly by Congress or in the case of ambiguity of the law, the agencies are granted the authority under “Chevron.”
However, it should be noted that a new case called “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo” will be argued this term and it seeks to roll back the Chevron case. Several Justices have indicated in other statements and opinions their opposition to Chevron and this may be the time that the “Chevron defense” will be overturned.
Reply to gitarcarver:
From the guy who actually wrote the “General Welfare” clause –
— James Madison
The logic behind this is crystal clear and obvious. “General Welfare” is not a get-out-jail-free card handed to Congress. The federal government is restricted to the powers given to it. That’s the whole friggin point of the Constitution and of being a Constitutional Republic.
Reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair,
At the time when the Constitution was ratified, there was a huge debate on the meaning of “general welfare.”
Hamilton and other Federalists took an opposite opinion. Hamilton “argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”
In 1936, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether Madison or Hamilton was right and they took the Hamitonian position:
“It declared, “the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
No one claims that all spending is legal if designated as “general welfare.” There are limitations. That being said, the DOE is most likely legally under the auspice of Constitutional spending.
Reply to gitarcarver:
The DOEducation is specifically un-Constitutional because it infringes on the states’ powers over education, which is a state issue. The DOE is specifically usurping power over education from the states and that is un-Constitutional.
We all know this because we have been arguing about the perversion of the various states’ education systems via the DOE (and other federal programs that like to worm their way into the states’ school systems).
If anyone really thought that the federal government had the COnstitutional power to be in local education then there would have been federal school systems popping up around the US … but they didn’t even try to do that because everyone knew that that would expose the fact that the Dept of Education, itself, is un-Constitutional and it would have ended all influence the feral government has been able to impose on the state systems.
primal –
Millhouse made two correct statements
A) the department of education is constitutional – well within congress’ enumerated powers to create. There is no violation of the constitution creating the Dept
B) Millhouse stated the Department of Ed should be shut down. Only leftists would disagree with Milhouse’s statement.
The next Republican president will be after we get a check on illegal ballots being shipped across state lines, and manufactured in the middle of the night.
Until that happens, we will continue to have retards like Joe Buythem and Cameltoe Whore.
that will never happen
You know this doesn’t even surprise me. The guy works for a dementia riddled pedophile, I don’t expect him to be smart.
What a DOPE!
Clinton….”Blessed are the peacekeepers”…. Etc etc… Intentional twisted to suit them.
What has come about is, “Blessed Art the Civil Servants, For They have Inherited the Earth”.
Probably ignored the first nine words as was said above, they’ll twist everything to suit their radical, far left fascist agenda.
Agreed. A deliberate twisting of the meaning by purposefully omitting the full quote. It’s what leftists do, they lie and they deceive to advance their agenda.
No. Cardona is just really that stupid that he thought Reagan had meant it in a good way. Cardona thought he was being clever and turning Reagan’s own words against conservatives.
The guy is a total retard. That’s all there is to it.
So technically Reagan did say what Cardona claimed, but he said it in the context of the total opposite of what Cardona meant.
Up is down, black is white, Left is right. : – (
This quote from the education secretary shows why our public schools are in decline. He totally misquotes Reagan and completely makes the original quote the opposite of what Reagan said. But hey, isn’t that what the msm does every day?
I believe it was Patrick Henry who said ‘Give me death’, thus proving the Founders supported euthanasia.
Alexander Hamilton once promoted big government: ‘Fall for everything.’
And, FDR said, “The only thing we need is fear.”
As Javier Milei, the new Argentina’s New President, would say…Afuera!!!
I’ve said it before and this just confirms that we are being governed by morons
If only….. but behind every moron is a puppeteer who is talented enough to pull the right strings.
The real question is whether Congress (the Legislature) can delegate (farm out) it’s constitutional authority to a third party (through a created “department”, or “agency” often referred to as the “bureaucracy”, “the deep state”, or the “fourth branch”), which is not an explicit constitutional branch of government.
I SAY IT CANNOT.
Congress can certainly create as many “departments”, “authorities”, or “agencies” as it wishes. and it can grant them the authority to advise both the citizenry and the Legislature. But it cannot authorize these agencies to act, constitutionally, as a legal proxy for, nor extend to them the powers, granted explicitly by the people only to Congress.