the difference is that constitution does not give rights.. it just guides the federal government..
for example:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's different from granting rights to people or even citizens. But what do i know, i am just reading the constitution as written.

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

I never said it gives, but protects...
In theUnited States, constitutional rights are derived from the people themselves and are protected primarily by the enumerated amendments to theUS Constitution, known as theBill of Rights. Persons may also have constitutional rights protected by the constitution of a state.

Ira, you know, I love(L) you being my intelligent opponent, you also like me for the same thing. But you took a little step onto the dance floor previously occupied by our own Miah-Wallace-sans-Vincent-Vega - Lina T. "The Great Hall of Twisting Everything." Where did you read that any of the conservative members of this group consider you Anti-American? Maria's quote have dealt with Americans (GOP, Dems, Independnents, серo-буро-малиновые) being against redistribution of wealth and appropriation of Health Care, (86% of all Americans, I have heard?) For that reason the author calls the proponents of ever widening government regulation - Anti American. Because majority of Americans are against it - no matter how they voted in November of 08.

__________________
Хочу лето (или нормальную зиму)

Oleg, ( although i believe the answers are only as good as the question you ask ) so if you disagree with the majority of the population of the country you automatically become anti-american?

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

Mike, if I am a legislator who is pushing an unpopular law - yes I am. As Oleg Sakhno, private tax payer, I am not.

__________________
Хочу лето (или нормальную зиму)

Mike Rabinovich: excellent and timely quotation from James Madison:
"Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Ira, nobody even called you anti-American. You took it upon yourself. :-O
The only reason you think that conservatives are against education, is because your good liberal educators want you to believe so. Apparently they succeeded:-(
If you ever heard of William Buckely Jr, you should know that he is a first class intellectual. Perhaps, one of the most educated people in the modern American history. And he was the father of modern American Conservatism.

Ira, It seems to me that you are confused about where conservatives stand oneducation: they support BETTER education for American children .
Liberals, on the other hand, support MORE EXPENSIVE education.
Liberals always seem to run out of money in public schools: no matter how much they get from the government, it's never enough to produce good results.
Meanwhile, much less expensive charter schools where liberal unions do not rule, do wonders with the students education.
Hm...
But charter school/voucher programss are usually supported by the conservative policy makers. And very much opposed by the liberal ones. So, who is against good education?
Tell me now.

This is very simple : just compare the basic knowledge of public school students ( on average, not in the most affluent counties), and the charter school students. Take Washington DC -the most famous example. The public schools there spent the most per student in US -something like $12-15 k a year. With the worst test scores/graduation rates. Next to those schools is a charter school, where some lucky parent ( all poor, for fair comparison) could put their kids -within a year those students start getting ahead of thir public school peer. The graduation rate is almost 100%. The kids go on with higher education.
Same city, same slums - but in one school emphasis is on childrens educaation ( math, reading), in all others - who know what? But they surely get tons of money from their liberal enablers in the Capitol Hill.

We don't blame everything on the teachers - we know parents have to do their job too - we are just saying give parents a choice...if the public school their children go to doesn't provide the children with good education, the government should not keep them in that school and should provide vouchers for the parents to take the kids to a better school...isn't it an American thing to do?

There is statistics that just came out that charter school definitely outperform public school everything equal. ( parent status, living condition etc).
Teachers union is a very powerful liberal lobby. They are interested in getting as much money from the gov. as possible.
You don't believe that they are pursuing their liberal political agenda? :-D ( I wonder why they donate millions and millions to the Democratic candidates)
BTW, there are good teacher in public schools.
There are also very bad teachers there who are not "fireable" due to the union protection.