Susan Pendergrass speaks with Chester (Checker) Finn, Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, about the recent federal executive order Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling. They discuss the balance between patriotic education and federal overreach, the limits on Washington’s role in curriculum, the latest NAEP scores, and more.

Read Checker’s piece here: “Trump should stay out of what students learn in school”

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps: 

03:00 The Current State of American Education
06:11 Federal Role in Education: Weaponization vs. Minimization
08:56 Reading Proficiency Crisis Among Students
11:57 Impact of Disbanding the Department of Education
15:03 The Need for Stronger Accountability in Education
17:59 School Choice and Funding Challenges
21:03 Optimism and Pessimism in Education’s Future
24:03 Addressing Chronic Absenteeism and Disconnected Youth

Download a transcript of this episode here. 

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Patriotic Education or Federal Overreach? With Chester (Checker) Finn appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Federalism and The Founders’ Vision with Charles C. W. Cooke appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s government grows larger every year, significantly outpacing inflation, and the federal government is the primary reason. Today Missouri is more reliant on federal aid than ever before, with more than 40 cents of each dollar spent coming from federal coffers.

The federal government primarily exercises its power over state policy through what are called grants-in-aid. These grants are transfers of money from the federal government to state or local governments to fund specific projects or programs. Upon accepting the federal funds, which are not loans and do not have to be repaid, state or local governments agree to spend the funds according to guidelines established by the federal government.

For most of American history, federal grants-in-aid were rarely used, but over the past 60 years, their influence on state budgets has skyrocketed. What were once seen as state prerogatives, such as maintaining roads, educating children, and caring for the needy, are now areas where the federal government holds enormous power. It is important to note that this loss of state control comes at a real cost to state taxpayers, emphasizing the point that these federal grants are in no way “free” for Missouri.

This report analyzes the various ways Missouri’s state government receives and spends federal aid, considers the strings attached to those dollars, and discusses how those policies have shaped the spending of state tax dollars. Finally, this report discusses the broader implications of increased state reliance on the federal government and proposes reforms for righting Missouri’s financial ship for generations to come.

Click here to read the full report.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

The post Saving Federalism: How Federal Policy Affects Missouri Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute has been similarly concerned with American schools teaching students a form of civics that is “participation-centric.” It is of course important for students to learn how to vote and how to contact their elected officials, but, as Hess argues, this is the easy stuff of civics education.

As Hess puts it:

A participation-centric approach to civics education is insufficient because it emphasizes what citizens must do to get their way but slights the reality that we frequently won’t get our way—and can even give students the sense that it’s somehow illegitimate when we don’t.  In a nation as sprawling, dynamic, and diverse as ours, it’s a sure thing that many citizens won’t get their way—even when everyone is engaged and operating in good faith. Civics education must help students understand this reality and the safeguards that protect us when we don’t get our way.

Today’s election is a great opportunity to reinforce this idea. Very few people, anywhere, will cast a ballot in which every single candidate, ballot initiative, or constitutional amendment they select will win. Everyone will be a mix of disappointed and satisfied.

So what can teachers do? They can explain that our Founding Fathers anticipated this very thing. They can explain how our American system diffuses power both horizontally (among the branches of government) and vertically (among the federal, state, and local governments) so that no one group is ever entirely in control. This allows the various factions (as James Madison called them) to keep each other in check and work out their differences in a variety of different venues. They can tell students that are upset with the result of the federal election to look at what is happening in their state or local community, or vice versa. Teachers can explain that even if their preferred candidate did not win, our system of government has safeguards built in to protect them and that there will be more elections in the future, and more chances to have their voices heard.

Elections are about more than winning. They are the process by which a free people adjudicate their differences. If we focus too much on the result of elections, we risk delegitimizing the process. If we erode the norms and values upon which elections are built, we risk losing the means of maintaining a representative democracy.

The post Election Day Is a Great Day for Civics Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There should be no further state bailouts. None.

Please do not offer bailouts. Please do not entertain them. The story of American governance over the last half-century has been one of a growing parent-child relationship between the federal and state governments. This relationship is predicated on the expectation of financial support for states in both ordinary and extraordinary times. American states were meant to be sovereigns, not trust fund babies protected from the consequences of their individual actions by the federal government

Now is the time for states to move out of the federal government’s basement and openly reject a new round of bailouts. If they don’t, the federal government needs to kick the deadbeats out by declining to deliver one. The federal government should not prevent states from receiving a needed education on the consequences of their policy decisions.

No. Bailouts.

Further “stimulus” to the private sector, whether it be to businesses or workers directly, should similarly cease. But the increasingly subsidiary federal-state relationship deserves immediate attention, and immediate rejection. Every state, including Missouri, needs to stop its extraordinary reliance on federal money, and the right time to start the detox process is now.

No bailouts. It’s time for the states to grow up.

The post Dear Mr. President: No More State and Local Bailouts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How would legislators do it? As our readers may know, the most commonly attempted way to amend the Constitution has been via a two-thirds vote of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. But perhaps less known is that two-thirds of the states themselves can call their own constitutional conventions for the purpose of independently proposing amendments to the Constitution. As the National Archives notes, “None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.” That no amendments have been proposed in this way,  however, doesn’t mean amendments can’t or won’t be, and if supporters of a Missouri Senate resolution have their way, the 28th Amendment will be the first of its kind to have been initiated by the states themselves.

There’s a lot in the resolution itself about what it intends to do and how, but here’s the heart of the resolution:

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the members of the Missouri Senate, Ninety-ninth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the House of Representatives concurring therein, hereby apply to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress;

Later provisions lay out the precise nature of the convention and what it may consider—it’s worth your time to read—but the key reform elements of the bill are clear enough: federal fiscal limitations, federal power limitations, and federal term limitations. Beyond that, the exact reforms are open to debate, albeit circumscribed by the reform language of the bill itself to prevent a runaway convention. Resolutions like this one have passed in ten other states and may also pass later this year in North Carolina, as well, so it’s certainly an active idea nationally.

Twelve states aren’t enough to initiate a convention, of course; to initiate it, thirty-four states will have to pass similar resolutions. But the objectives of the resolution here are worthwhile enough, and its prospects plausible enough, to highlight here. If the bill passes the House, Missouri would become either the 11th or 12th state to sign on to this initiative. We’ll keep you posted if that happens.

The post Resolution for Article V Convention Deserves Serious Consideration appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How did they do this? By invoking a heretofore little-used law called the Congressional Review Act, originally passed as part of the Contract with America in 1996. It allows Congress, through a joint resolution, to strike down recently issued regulations wholesale if they believe that those regulations differ substantially from the intent of the original legislation. The Department of Education’s rules surrounding the Every Student Succeeds Act were ripe for the picking, and for good reason.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed in late 2015 and signed into law by President Obama.  After nearly a half century during which the federal government accumulating increasing amounts of power over K-12 education, ESSA was a bipartisan attempt to return a substantial amount of authority back to the states. The Department of Education, however, in writing the rules that states would have to follow to be in compliance with the law, seems to have tried to hang onto everything it could.

The National Governors Association published a list of some of the regulations it had problems with, and just a quick perusal reveals that Department had mandated things like a single summative grade for schools, had narrowed the kinds of indicators that can be used to measure school success,  and had tried to set timelines for things like school improvement plans when the underlying legislation was purposely vague in order to give states more flexibility. These examples and many others show the degree to which bureaucrats acted like mini-legislators in their own right.

It is the job of the executive branch of our government to faithfully execute the laws written by Congress. Members of administrative agencies might not like a law, but it is their duty to see it through regardless.

Practically speaking, Congress just put the ball firmly in Missouri’s court. We can no longer point to the federal government as some bogey-man preventing us from doing what is best for kids. We are in charge of our education system, and we need to work diligently so it delivers for all of our children.

According to this PowerPoint presentation by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, it looks like the state plans to submit its plan to comply with the new law on April 3. When the plan is released, we will make sure to have analysis available for you, detailing what it means for districts, schools, teachers, and children.

The post Repealing a Mountain of Regulation with This One Simple Trick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“The basic assumption of your draft regulations appears to be that top down, Washington driven standardization is best…. You are funding teaching interventions or changes to the learning environment that promise to make public education better, i.e. greater mastery of what it takes to become an effective citizen and a productive member of society. In the draft you have circulated, I sense a pervasive technocratic bias and an uncritical faith in the power of social science.”

Was it:

(A)   Then Kansas Senator (now Governor) Sam Brownback

(B)   Then Texas Governor Rick Perry

(C)   Then California Attorney General  (now Governor ) Jerry Brown

(D)   Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

If you guessed Sam Brownback, you would be wrong. It was actually Democrat Jerry Brown.  Yes, that Jerry Brown.

This quote resurfaced in an interesting piece by Matt Barnum of education website The 74 about California’s long-running opposition to federal education policy. Brown’s riposte was a harbinger of the showdown that California ultimately had with the Department of Education in 2013, when California suspended its standardized testing and school rating system. The feds said they couldn’t do it and threatened to withhold funding. Brown responded more like a Texan than a Californian and dared them to come and take it.  The feds backed down.

I think there are two interesting lessons to take away from this story (which is worth reading in full).

First, states can stand up to the federal government. It obviously helped California that it is the most populous state in the union and is one that will reliably deliver Democratic votes, but even with that said, it is clear that the federal government is loathe to pull funding that overwhelmingly benefits poor students and students with special needs. That is not to say that they wouldn’t, but states are probably in a stronger bargaining position than they realize.

Second, the issue itself matters. California picked a smart issue on which to go toe to toe with the Department of Education. Had the feds been opposing standardized tests and the states supporting them, the calculus would probably be much different. A hardline stance might not work with an issue with more divided opinion or one where the federal government has the majority opinion on its side.

I don’t know if what California is doing is right or wrong. I’m by no means a technocrat, but I think they probably swung too far in the opposite direction on testing and school accountability. That said, part of respecting local control of education is realizing that not everyone is going to make the decisions that you would have made had you been part of the process. Agree or not, we can learn from California about what states can do when they feel they have been pushed too far, and we can recognize the need for states to have a game plan in place in case they are asked (or ordered) to do things expressly against the will of their citizens.

The post They Fought the Feds, and the Feds Lost! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Education Week has a detailed cheat sheet on the ins and outs of the bill, but the Associated Press’s summary cuts to the core of the issue, “The bill would return to the states the authority to decide how to use students' test performance in assessing teachers and schools, and it would end federal efforts to encourage academic standards such as Common Core.”

I want to underscore just how important this is. In education, as in most policy areas, federal involvement is a one-way ratchet. Federal influence in education has been on the rise since the days of Sputnik, accelerated by President Johnson as part of the War on Poverty, and brought to its apex by No Child Left Behind. This looks to be the first time that trend has been reversed.

The tide is turning because people across the country and across the political spectrum have realized that the federal government is in a terrible place to try and dictate education policy. We have 100,000 schools in 14,000 school districts spread all across our vast and diverse nation. Trying to centrally determine how to hold schools accountable is simply too great a challenge. Those decisions are much better made by individuals closer to children and the communities where they live.

The bill still has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President, but all indicators point to that happening relatively soon. If and when it does, Missouri will have much more control over its educational future, and the hard work of creating a world-class education system without Uncle Sam breathing down our neck can begin.

The post No Child Left Behind Has One Foot in the Grave appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last month, Missouri’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver was extended to the 2017-18 school year. In exchange for adopting administration-favored policies such as teacher equity plans, Missouri will receive relief from the accountability decree, “All children will be proficient by 2014.”

In 2012 the Education Department began issuing waivers as more and more states failed to hit the “adequate yearly progress” targets set forth in NCLB. Since then, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received waivers.

Until Congress passes a new law, NCLB will ensure that students remain victims of the federal government’s failing status quo. The School Superintendents Association represented more than 10,000 school administrators across the United States saying the law contained federal overreach and unworkable mandates and requirements.

When more than 80 percent of the participants of the program are granted explicit permission to waive penalties, there must be some call for change.

In April, the Senate Education Committee voted unanimously in favor of a bill to revise NCLB.

This bill, the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA), would:

1.       Eliminate Adequate Yearly Progress targets and all of the sanctions that come along with them. Standardized testing would be required as informational for parents and taxpayers, not as part of a federally imposed accountability system.

2.       Allow statewide annual performance tests to be broken up into smaller portions. This would allow many districts to eliminate additional tests they used to measure performance throughout the school year and increase efficiency.

3.       Prohibit any federal official from mandating or incentivizing states to adopt or maintain any particular set of standards (including Common Core, which is explicitly named).

4.       Allow states to set up their own accountability systems and to develop their own turnaround strategies for low-performing schools to be implemented at the local level.

All in all, the ECAA represents the federal government taking a big step back from NCLB waivers. Whether this bill will become law is another question entirely, but for now it is promising that a bipartisan group of senators can see that the federal government overreached and it is time for a course correction.

The post No Child Left Behind the Times appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the idea that Missouri is getting the short end of the stick on federal fuel taxes is mistaken. In fact, since 2000, Missouri has gotten more from the federal highway trust fund than it put in. The latest official data shows that in 2013 Missouri got back about $1.17 for every highway user dollar it sent to Washington. In fact, in 2013 only one state (Texas) did not receive what amounts to a federal subsidy for its highway spending, as the map below demonstrates:

There have been years, specifically in the 1990s, when Missouri put more into the federal highway trust fund than it got out. But, since the inception of the state highway system in 1956, Missouri has gotten back about $1.06 for every $1.00 it sent to Washington in terms of fuel taxes and other user fees. Only Texas, Indiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina can claim to have given more than they have gotten back over the last 60 years. The map below shows this in detail:

Simply put, the federal government cannot be accused of precipitating a funding crisis at MoDOT and will not be able to solve Missouri’s problems by remitting fuel tax dollars. The fact is that Missouri already receives federal subsidies for its highways, and any more assistance likewise would be a subsidy to highway users.

The post Highway Dollars: Does Washington Give Missouri Its Fair Share? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The ESEA was created in 1965 as a part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” The statute funds state primary and secondary education. Currently, Missouri school districts receive about 10 percent of revenue from the federal government.

The ESEA has been reauthorized every five years, and each presidential administration has left its mark on the original act. Most recently, it was reauthorized during the Bush Administration as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Because Congress has not reauthorized the act during Obama’s presidency, there is concern the administration might be using the act as leverage to incite favored reforms.

The Department of Education has instituted “waivers” from NCLB. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards and tying teacher evaluations to student data are policies states must adopt to receive a waiver. Waivers have faced criticism, as, under similar conditions, some states have received them while others have not. Last month, Oklahoma was given its waiver back.

The question is: Assuming states continue to receive federal monies (and the act will be reauthorized), what should the ESEA’s reauthorization look like?

In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Heritage Foundation Fellow Lindsey Burke made the following recommendations:

• Eliminate any federal mandates concerning NCLB;
• Reduce the number of programs associated with NCLB; and
• Allow states more portability with Title 1, the component of NCLB that allows students in failing schools the option of transferring to a higher-quality public school.

Burke’s recommendations don’t end federal intrusion into state education altogether, but this does seem to be a compromise between keeping the ESEA and giving power back to the states.

Should the federal government stay out of education completely, including federal funding? What do you think of Burke’s recommendations?

The post ESEA: What Should Reauthorization Look Like? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My students then received a lesson about the 10th amendment, “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.” Because education is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, education is a power that belongs to the states.

Tell that to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The U.S. Department of Education unveiled its 50-state strategy on Monday. The strategy, a neglected measure of the 12-year-old No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), readdresses the uneven distribution of effective teachers across low- and high-poverty schools. It requires states to create new plans that address teacher distribution by April 2015, and Missouri is not immune.

For fewer than half the states that submitted plans post-NCLB, many have not been updated in several years. Below is a table from Missouri’s original analysis identifying core academic subjects (math, science, etc.) taught by highly qualified teachers. The data, though last revised in 2006, shows a lower percentage of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools.

Missouri is one of 42 states to receive a waiver from parts of NCLB, including the infamous accountability decree, “All students will be proficient by 2014.” In May, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) submitted a request for a one-year extension to the 2012 waiver. DESE will have to renew again next May.

Not coincidentally, the Department of Education’s requirement for updated teacher equity plans will have to be submitted one month prior to DESE’s 2015 extension request. The Department of Education gets equity plans, Missouri gets NCLB waiver. The Department of Education gets unified curriculum, states get Race to the Top money. “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” seems to be the Department of Education’s M.O.

Of course, teacher equity is an issue that ought to be addressed, but the U.S. Constitution did not grant federal authority over education. This power belongs to Missourians. This whole incentive game the Department of Education is playing isn’t fooling anyone. Teacher equity may be a problem, but federal overreach is a bigger one.

The post I’ll Scratch Your Back, If You Comply With This Federal Mandate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Let’s start with Finn and Petrilli’s argument that [Missourians] should embrace Common Core in part because the state “has already invested time and money to implement the new standards.” Basically, Washington successfully coerced [Missouri] into sinking money into Common Core, so we had better stick with it.

McCluskey and Banfield note that the Fordham piece mischaracterized the nature of Common Core’s development.

Common Core was created by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, associations that neither represent states nor the people of [Missouri]. Legislators represent you, and the NGA doesn’t speak for states just because governors are elected. NGA decisions have no binding ramifications for states, and it’s doubtful anyone has ever voted for a gubernatorial candidate based on what they thought he or she would do in the NGA. Governors simply have very little incentive to care what the NGA does.

Next, the Obama administration didn’t just “promote” the standards, it coerced their adoption with real ramifications. At the nadir of the “Great Recession,” it told states that to fully compete in the $4.35 billion Race to the Top program they had to promise to adopt Common Core. That is exactly what most did, before the final standards were even published. Adoption was cemented by making it one of only two ways states could meet requirements for waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act.

Finn and Petrilli claim that the Common Core doesn’t dictate curriculum and is good for school choice.

That’s like saying that government requiring you to ride a bike, but letting you pick the color and a banana seat, doesn’t constrain your transportation options. Similarly, they suggested that because lots of people are scrambling to produce Core-aligned materials, it’s fostering innovation. That’s basically proclaiming that with all car and airplane manufacturers suddenly making bikes, travel innovation will explode.

Readers shouldn’t be fooled by the folks at Fordham; the Common Core is definitely not a “victory for everyone,” as they would have you believe.

(Hat tip to John Combest for pointing out all the places the Fordham piece was published.)

The post Is Common Core A ‘Victory For Everyone’? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Milton Friedman once said, “Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.” The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a well-intentioned idea, but they will have a disastrous impact on individual liberty and academic freedom for students. With full-scale implementation of these de facto national standards looming, Missourians may want to heed Friedman’s warning.

The idea is simple. Set common, rigorous standards for what all students in the United States should know and then watch them excel. No harm, no foul, right? Wrong.

Supporters of these standards will have you believe that the development and our subsequent adoption was completely a state-led process. The fact is that the U.S. Department of Education heavily influenced these standards. The end result is a reduction in local control.

Supporters of Common Core will also have you believe that these are just content standards. The Common Core sets the standards for math and English language arts; other subjects are forthcoming, but simply saying these are content standards could not be further from the truth. Establishing a set of national standards will have far-reaching implications for all Missourians, even those who homeschool or send their children to private schools. The standards will influence textbook development, teaching practices, college entrance exams, teacher preparation, and much more.

Ultimately, the whole Common Core movement is built on the flawed mindset that we can mandate and orchestrate improved student achievement through centralized government. For standards-based accountability to work, it must be followed by heavy-handed government accountability.

Improved student achievement comes from having great teachers in the classroom who can meet the individual needs of their students and from having parents engaged in their child’s education. States, schools, teachers, and even students are far too unique to have one centralized approach that is suitable to all of their differences.

There is nothing wrong with having high academic standards for students, but a federal consortium of states does not have to set those standards. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute wrote: “Only a free market can produce the mix of high standards, accountability, and flexibility that is essential to achieving optimal educational outcomes.”

Parents and taxpayers in Missouri are right to be wary of the Common Core State Standards because they are nothing more than the camel’s nose under the tent for more federal involvement in our local schools.

James V. Shuls is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Common Core: A Well Intentioned Disaster appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For states, that is a huge distinction with major policy implications. Many employers under the ACA can be fined/taxed if they do not provide health insurance to individuals who qualify for the federal government’s subsidies. However, if a state does not build its own exchange, then no employee would qualify for the subsidy, and therefore employers in the state would not be subject to the tax because none of their employees would meet the criteria set out in the law.

Then there is the national implication. If the federal government cannot collect those taxes/fines from employers, then the ACA — already rife with budgetary gimmickry — becomes even less sustainable and more fiscally dangerous. If enough states choose not to create exchanges, the ACA would become basically unworkable. (Credit goes to Cannon for really hammering this point home over the last year. You can find his full study on the matter here.)

Not surprisingly, it was only recently that Washington woke up to this reality. The Internal Revenue Service has now put forward an administrative rule that would expand the subsidies and taxes to federal exchanges, despite what the law says. Of course, there are some barriers to the IRS just making up new taxes. Enter the Oklahoma suit:

Under Defendants’ Interpretation, [this rule] expand[s] the circumstances under which an Applicable Large Employer must make an Assessable Payment . . . with the result that an employer may be required to make an Assessable Payment under circumstances not provided for in any statute and explicitly ruled out by unambiguous language in the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiff believes . . . that subjecting the State of Oklahoma in its capacity as an employer to the employer mandate would cause the Affordable Care Act to exceed Congress’s legislative authority; to violate the Tenth Amendment; to impermissibly interfere with the residual sovereignty of the State of Oklahoma; and to violate Constitutional norms relating to the relationship between the states, including the State of Oklahoma, and the Federal Government.

Earlier this year, Christie Herrera, formerly of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and I wrote an op/ed for the Southeast Missourian on the issue of state exchanges. As we made clear, Missouri has not, and should not, implement a state insurance exchange under Obamacare for a variety of reasons. One of the most important reasons out there is that by declining to create the exchange, the state could avoid a bevy of burdensome taxes on employers. Granted, there is no telling exactly how a court will rule on this and to what extent the law could be saved despite itself, but the Oklahoma challenge begins the process of determining once and for all whether the law means what it says, or means something else completely.

The post Oklahoma Challenges Health Care Tax In Federally-Run Insurance Exchanges appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Generally, I would let my prior remarks speak for themselves, but given the continuing interest in the topic, I think it is worthwhile to revisit the issue at least one more time.

Is there a constitutional right for states to nullify federal laws? The answer is “No.” As the Heritage Foundation notes, the nullification question was decided far more conclusively than some have suggested, and was decided in substance by the founding generation and its immediate successors. The right did not exist then, and it does not exist now.

Although James Madison’s work is frequently cited to support nullification arguments, the fact is he did not advocate for nullification in 1798. To the contrary, Madison — often recognized as the “father of the Constitution” — vehemently asserted that no nullification right existed for the states, “with a surprise hereafter, that any other [interpretation] should ever have been contended for.” Even President Andrew Jackson, a staunch and boisterous defender of states’ rights, rejected nullification as a right reserved for the states.

There is no “secret” or “forgotten” history here. Whether things “should have” turned out this way and whether they did are very different questions, and they should not be confused as being the same. While I love a good philosophical discussion about how the best or ideal government would be structured, I would be in error if I expressed my philosophy as a history in spite of the history. There is no provision in the Constitution for states to “nullify” a federal law, and I hope the liberty-minded will decline to try and breathe life into such an interpretation.

The post Nullification Is Unconstitutional appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The urban farmer seemed out of place, because he made little effort to connect his locavore ideology to the problem of childhood weight gain. Of course, children will be healthier if they eat lots of fruits and vegetables, but there’s no reason those fruits and vegetables have to be grown in their cities instead of, say, shipped in from a field in California. The farmer railed against buying food from foreign countries — which, again, is no reason to avoid food from California, even if you accept his protectionist premise. Then he concluded with a few more off-topic pronouncements, including, “When farmers are in business, schools are out,” which sounds to me like an argument against relying on local food for children’s nutrition, and a recommendation that cities grow food in vacant buildings. (Not vacant lots, vacant buildings.)

The mayor of Hernando, Miss., offered more relevant comments, although he too gave the obligatory nods to farmers’ markets and urban gardens. He had a lot of ideas about things cities can do to invite physical activity, such as repairing sidewalks and building playgrounds. The mayor’s emphasis on local policies rather than federal mandates was refreshing. (You see, I have local biases of my own.) And I appreciated it when he said that government should not tell people to be healthy because “that’s a private decision.”

The mayor of Somerville, Mass., advocated a more invasive approach for government. His “Shape Up” campaign goes so far as to place a public stamp of approval on certain menu items at restaurants. Even more troubling is the mayor’s declaration, “The healthy choice must be the easy choice.” This recalls the attitude expressed by a student in Clayton when she spoke in support of the proposed smoking ban: If a choice is good, the city should ensure that it is also easy and fun. In other words, you shouldn’t have to make any sacrifices or be at all inconvenienced when you do the right thing — not if the government can help it. Take that way of thinking just a tiny step further, and the government will be making your choices for you.

While most of the speakers had creative plans for cities and schools, none of them explained why the federal government should play a role or why change couldn’t come from the ground up. The first lady emphasized that her campaign won’t try to impose Washington’s vision on everyone, but it’s hard to believe that when she says she’d like to turn convenience stores into produce markets.

The post “Let’s Move” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The editorial concludes:

The unseemly competition for federal dollars will continue until state and local governments join forces on the principled high ground and refuse to play anymore.

Race to the Top is similar to this year’s Census marketing campaign. The end goal of each is for the federal government to distribute money to the states. The difference is that the Constitution mandates a census, whereas there’s no constitutional justification for a race to the top — or for any other federal interference in education.

If Race to the Top is a show, I’d like Missouri to call a friend; we should call Texas and learn from a state that won’t run for the tax dollars.

The post Dancing with the Feds appeared first on Show-Me Institute.