Arne Nixon?

It seems like Russ Whitehurst,  Deb Meier*, Diane Ravitch, and everyone else now arguing or hinting that the Race to the Top does not have legitimacy in law would have a stronger case if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (pdf) didn’t, you know, specifically authorize the Secretary of Education to allocate those funds to states of his choosing in amounts of his choosing based-on the core areas of focus identified in the law, “and such other criteria as the Secretary determines appropriate.” I3 is there, too, by the way.**

It’s certainly fair to argue about whether or not that kind of discretion is good policy, and there is a long running argument about whether or not Congress defers to much to the Executive Branch because of the vagueness that laws are frequently crafted with.  But even the hint that there is any kind of abuse of power here seems more than a little beyond the pale and sadly symptomatic of the debate today – especially considering the congressional negotiations that went on over this language prior to its enactment.

Perhaps soon they can have a forum and bridge the differences about whether or not the U.S. Constitution, 16th Amendment notwithstanding, really requires us to pay income tax?  That’s a lively one in some circles, too, and equally rooted in the law.

*While we’re at it, also seems like Meier would have a stronger case on Race to the Top ‘gun to your head’ or ‘irresistible lure’ coercion if a bunch of states were not actually opting out and in the process demonstrating the genuinely voluntary nature of the competition.

**In fact, it’s some of the most popular No Child Left Behind waivers that seem to be lacking a statutory home…