Education Secretary Can't Read Constitution

At a hearing last week, Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan was asked a direct question. Like certain other Harvard graduates we know of, Duncan seems blissfully unaware of either the Constitution or the limitations on his own power. He seemed particularly flummoxed, undoubtedly because he graduated magna cum laude. There seems to be an inverse relationship between Harvard achievement and dealing with reality in the Obama administration.

The question was simple: "Where specifically does the Constitution authorize the federal government to be involved in primary and secondary education?" The simple answer, of course, is "nowhere." But one would at least expect a half-hearted attempt from a Harvard grad to explain to us illiterates that it is an "implied power." That trope has been used for decades to expand the intrusive role and stranglehold on curriculum that the federal government has perpetrated on the American people and the States.

Apparently, he didn't even learn that specious argument at Harvard. But if there's one thing that Harvard grads are very adept at--it's dodging questions and changing the subject. Duncan begged the question by responding: "We are obviously a small percent of the overall funding, you know, about 10%." Well, there's a non-sequitur for you. Not only did he fail to explain where the federal government derives its power to interfere in education, but then he tried to minimize the Department's role in our expanding debt by claiming that its unconstitutional use of public money is minimal. Isn't that like being a little pregnant? It's OK to extort funds from the taxpayers with no constitutional authority so long as you stay under a certain percentage of the budget?

When the question was repeated, Duncan went into full spin cycle. In his senior year at Harvard, Duncan clearly took to heart what he learned in "For the Children 101." He begged the question once again by saying: "The vast majority of funding comes at the local level--state and local level. But we have a responsibility to support children who have historically not had those kinds of opportunities--disadvantaged children, poor children, homeless students, children who are English language learners (read: "illegal immigrants") and, more recently we've seen a tremendous amount of reform in the Department." Oh, such as killing the voucher and charter school initiatives in Washington DC?

"But what about your constitutional authorization to use federal funds for education?" Well, third time's the charm. "We have to dramatically improve the quality of education we are providing this country and we can help to continue to reward excellence and encourage it at the local level."

"Yes, but what about the authorization?" Oh, never mind. Getting a Harvard grad to answer a direct question about the Constitution is like asking Bugs Bunny to explain quantum physics. Neither knows anything about the subject, but both feel free to explain it anyway. I often think that if you ask a Harvard grad what time it is, he'll tell you how to make a clock, and he'll get the instructions wrong. But be of good cheer. The Department "only" spent about $107 billion dollars last year on dumbing America down.