Ad hominem sounds like fun... let's just go with that from now on.

Well, now that I know your dad is a fellow businessman, your attitude confuses me even more.

Rebellious kids.

My dad's also politically insane. Could call him a krellin-ite. Maybe he is krellin. Oh wait, krellin was already my dad, we knew that.

Well just do me a favor and take what both say with a grain of salt. Research it when you approach the next Presidential ellection. Look at what the current policies do to us then. And then look at the candidates stated policies, their consistency of message (Romney's was inconsistent, no doubt) and their business or political history (Al Gore invented the internet! Woohoo! Yeah right!). Then make an informed decision without the preconceived notions implanted by your teacher or the rabid Tea Party teachings of your dad.

"I didn't say I was opposed to universal education. I said I was opposed to federal involvement in education. We have this great thing called "states" who have been failing to exercise the full extent of their power lately. "

I happen to agree with you. However, you also argued, not only that federal involvement in education is a bad idea (true), but that it was unconstitutional. This is false, because you can't make the case that education is not related to the public welfare.

I could argue with the exact semantics of "general welfare" but it is an admittedly weak argument. The argument could also be made that since the federal government does note have the specific power to control education, it does not have the power under the Tenth Amendment.

Well, it doesn't have the power to *control* education, but I don't think the argument could be successfuly made that it doesn't have the power to *spend* on education. Its control then comes via putting strings on the money.

Very interestingly, the Supreme Court did rule in NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case) that there are limits on how far this spending-with-strings can go before it does become a violation of the 10th amendment. Just where that line gets drawn will be one of the really interesting things to watch in Constitutional law over the next 10-40 years.