Do ya wanna read something funny?

What happened 50 years ago is NOT what's going on today ..............................

Right. And that is because the state legislature took control of schools and school employees away from local political hacks. If you want local control of schools again, politically organize to a critical mass those who agree with you to change the law- like every other successful political and lobbying action group does. Otherwise you are just spittin' into the wind.

You spent days telling us teachers are county employees but now you say the state controls all. If the state controls all, those who work for them are state employees, just as I stated.

The political hacks now are dues paying teachers, Ziggy.

I'm not spittin in the wind, Ziggy. The day Kate graduated BHS I officially dropped out of that rat race. Loyd is homeschooled, and like every other taxpayer we just pay and pay and pay.

As far as political groups I'm a member of the WVGOP, the Campaign for Liberty and the Republican Liberty Caucus, WV Home Educators and I may join WV CALA. Not sure yet, I'm about to look into it after receiving an invite in the mail.

However, you have indicated you don't see anything wrong with the current system. You don't think parents should have any control, other than at the ballot box. I'm not holding my breath waiting for things to change any time soon at the state level. Although, to give credit where credit is due, both the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have forced states into taking action in order to receive federal money.

Aaron wrote:You spent days telling us teachers are county employees but now you say the state controls all. If the state controls all, those who work for them are state employees, just as I stated.

Not according to the law- which I posted a few posts above here. The law directs that school employeess are employed by COUNTY boards of education. School employees are no more state employees than are the employees of any other county or city government in West Virginia.

If it helps you feel better to blame me for the way things are, then I guess I serve some purpose by being your whipping boy. But all I am telling you is what the law says. And the law says that public school teachers are employees of county boards of education. And as a legal matter, it is what the law says that counts- not what you or anyone else (other than the Courts) says it means.

The law directs that school employeess are employed by COUNTY boards of education.

The BOEs are in fact an "entity" of State Government same as is County Health Departments. Health Officers are employees of the State. In the above, to employ means to hire. And if State Law directs them to "hire" then the BOE is acting as "personell manager" for the State.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:You spent days telling us teachers are county employees but now you say the state controls all. If the state controls all, those who work for them are state employees, just as I stated.

Not according to the law- which I posted a few posts above here. The law directs that school employeess are employed by COUNTY boards of education. School employees are no more state employees than are the employees of any other county or city government in West Virginia.

If it helps you feel better to blame me for the way things are, then I guess I serve some purpose by being your whipping boy. But all I am telling you is what the law says. And the law says that public school teachers are employees of county boards of education. And as a legal matter, it is what the law says that counts- not what you or anyone else (other than the Courts) says it means.

Precedent says otherwise and this wouldn't stand in any state save West Virginia.

And I don't blame you. I just note that on the subject of mining, you don't place near the emphisis on the law as you do here and in fact have stated that individuals should disobey the law. Wonder why that is?

Aaron wrote:And I don't blame you. I just note that on the subject of mining, you don't place near the emphisis on the law as you do here and in fact have stated that individuals should disobey the law. Wonder why that is?

?????????????????????

SamCogar wrote:

The law directs that school employeess are employed by COUNTY boards of education.

The BOEs are in fact an "entity" of State Government same as is County Health Departments. Health Officers are employees of the State. In the above, to employ means to hire. And if State Law directs them to "hire" then the BOE is acting as "personell manager" for the State.

And using your reasoning, city governments, too. And as states are entities created legally by the federal government, all employees at any level of government are federal government employees, using your reasoning.

The states are entities created by the Constitution not the federal government.

Correction Stephanie, the States pre-dated the Constitution, authorized the Constitution and created the Federal Government.

Stephanie wrote:The states are entities created by the Constitution not the federal government.

It takes an act of Congress to create a state- other than the "original" colonies that became states via ratification of the Constitution- a federal government document. So, using Sam's reasoning, all employees at any level of government are federal government employees.

Sam is saying the county Board of Education, placed under County Government Control is an entity of the state because just as the County Health Departments, it was created by and placed under the control of the county government by the state government and it is the state government that controls this entity, so much so that if they deem the entity a failure, the can regain control of said entity.

The same is not so regarding the admission of a state into the United States.

While it does take an act of Congress to admit a state, once that occurs, according to the Equal Footing Doctrine, all states are admitted on "an equal footing of the original states on all aspects whatsoever." This doctrine has been challenged constitutionally and has withstood the muster so once a state is admitted, it has the same rights and laws as the original 13 states that created the Constitution. Additionally, the United States cannot revoke statehood or assume control over the state because they deem the state a failure.

Clearly those two government actions are not the same.

Additionally, the United States cannot revoke statehood or assume control over the state because they deem the state a failure.

It can and it has. Ask Orville Faubus and George Wallace about that.

As both are dead Ziggy it would be difficult to ask either so I'll have to rely on what history tells us.

OK, I looked and history states rather clearly that no state has had statehood revoked or the state government replaced and controlled by the federal government meaning once again, you are incorrect in what you claim.

In fact, if you look closely at history, the Little Rock crisis shows something completely different as Orval Faubus was a progressive Governor who raised taxes for teacher salary increases and manipulated the Brown v. Board of Education decision not to keep out black students as that was a platform he had previously endorsed but as a means of confusing the issues of the time and appeasing a segment of the citizens of Arkansas. If nothing else, he was a politician who held the Arkansas governorship for 10 years after the incident in Little Rock and had working relationships with both JFK and LBJ, both of whom won Arkansas on their road to the White House.

Wallace was a bigot who never lost his state to the federal government.

The fact remains that the federal government took over parts of those states' government operations- however temporarily.

The federal government did not take ANY action in Alabama outside of court action and in Arkansas Ike nationalized the National Guard, which the President is constitutionally authorized to do. There was no revocation of statehood, the federal government didn't take over the states and both governors maintained all control of their respective states. You are incorrect in your statements.

Aaron wrote:There was no action taken that wasn't constitutionally authorized and at no time was either Governor out of the loop. You are incorrect in your statement.

No, I am not incorrect. And I did not say that it was unconstitutional, because it wasn't. Both governors might have been "in the loop" (though Wallace bitched and moaned about it for years afterward) but their powers on the matter then at hand were taken from them, pre-empted by the federal government, which took police command of both situations at issue.

National Guard units are branches of the United States of America’s military and their commander in chief is the President of the United States of America. The Governor is in the chain of command but he is not the highest ranking member thus no power was taken from them.

Guard members answered to their highest ranking superiors in both cases. Regardless of the speech George Wallace gave concerning states rights or his continued bitching and moaning, neither Governor lost any power thus you are incorrect in your statements.

Regardless of the speech George Wallace gave concerning states rights or his continued bitching and moaning, neither Governor lost any power thus you are incorrect in your statements.

Both states and both governors lost the power to determine whether or not their schools and universities would be segregated or not.

Wallace was in charge of the Alabama National Guard one day, telling it what to do at the University of Alabama. But by the next day someone else was in charge of those same Guardsmen, and telling Wallace what to do at the same location. Wallace was forced to give up control of who was to be enrolled at the U. of Alabama. That power was taken form the state of Alabama by the federal government.

You keep saying that it was all legal, and it was. But the fact remains that both states lost the power over segregation vs. integration of their schools and colleges. Since we agree that it was legal and constitutional, what are we arguing about? Sometimes you remind me of Ms. Ziggy.

ziggy wrote:

Regardless of the speech George Wallace gave concerning states rights or his continued bitching and moaning, neither Governor lost any power thus you are incorrect in your statements.

Both states and both governors lost the power to determine whether or not their schools and universities would be segregated or not.

As did 46 other states. Your point?

ziggy wrote:Wallace was in charge of the Alabama National Guard one day, telling it what to do at the University of Alabama. But by the next day someone else was in charge of those same Guardsmen, and telling Wallace what to do at the same location. Wallace was forced to give up control of who was to be enrolled at the U. of Alabama. That power was taken form the state of Alabama by the federal government.

How can you lose something you never had? Wallace and Faubus had rank pulled on the, they didn't lose control. I'm quite confident that if either needed their state's militia elsewhere, both could have sought permission from the ranking superior to use them.

As for who could and couldn't enrol at the University of Alabama, I'm not sure that Wallace ever had that power. I would assume that was left up to the admissions department and the guidelines they follow. But if a governor had that authority, Wallace lost nothing that William Maynard did not lose in West Virginia. Maynard just reacted differently.

ziggy wrote:You keep saying that it was all legal, and it was. But the fact remains that both states lost the power over segregation vs. integration of their schools and colleges. Since we agree that it was legal and constitutional, what are we arguing about? Sometimes you remind me of Ms. Ziggy.

As did 46 other states. And I'm not arguing. I simply corrected one of your inaccurate statements to which you brought up Faubus and Wallace, to which you are wrong as well. Just because you refuse to admit it doesn't make you any less wrong but then I'm sure you've heard that a time or two thousand.

And the reason I keep saying it is legal is because you implied earlier that Congress had some sort of authority over states because it was one of their acts that created the states to begin with and as I’ve already shown, that is just not the case. Federalization of the National Guard is a power vested in the President of the United States by the Constitution and not something that was applied to states admitted by, as you state, acts of Congress. It's part of the Equal Footing Doctrine.

Given your line of reasoning previously and your statements about Congressional acts, I believe that to be a valid point to make.

And I’ve met Mrs. Ziggy. For the most part, she seems like an intelligent woman. What’s she doing with you?

And I’ve met Mrs. Ziggy. For the most part, she seems like an intelligent woman. What’s she doing with you?

She's been asking me that for 43 years. I keep telling her it's because she in dazzled by my high intelligence. And she keeps buying it.

So shhhhhhhhhhhh.