Watson's remarks cost him his job, and sparked a discussion about his legacy. I'm sorry people haven't been hard enough on him to satisfy you, but I don't think a dottering old man in the twilight of a brilliant and oft-controversial career is a fair comparison to a politician who primary appeal is to selfishness. • • • In General One of the problems with the idea of returning certain power to the states is the Fourteenth Amendment, which drives States' Rights activists nuts. The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was applied in Loving v. Virginia, which used that portion of the Constitution to strike down anti-miscegenation laws at all levels. Once the state-level decision to strike anti-miscegenation on Constitutional grounds was affirmed, that outcome was extended to the nation because all people are entitled to equal protection under the law. Coming from Virginia should not mean you have fewer civil rights than someone from California. This could become an issue in extracting the federal government from education. Consider what a lack of federal standards could mean. Let's consider students applying to to a prestigious public school like U-Mich or Berkley. What constitutes equal protection? States like California, New York, and Washington will have different—e.g., higher—standards than, say, Texas or Kansas. Should a bright student from Topeka be refused entry to a good school because his state set lower educational standards? It's not the student's fault that his family lives in Kansas. It's not the student's fault that people who came before him set lower standards. Should, then, California or Michigan, for instance, be required to lower their standards to admit students from Kansas? Should a renowned research school like the University of Washington alter its standards to accommodate young "scientists" who adhere to young-earth creationism? Should good social studies programs (e.g. Univ. of New Mexico, Univ. of Wisconsin) alter their criteria in order to accommodate Lone Star (Texas) social studies? Or should nobody have to adjust anything? This presents a long-term challenge that would see students from states with lower academic standards unable to compete at more prestigious universities. In the 1990s, a citizens' group in Oregon put an anti-gay measure on the ballot that, if enacted, would have dictated such sweeping policy in the public education system that the medical schools would have been obliged to teach religion instead of science. Would you hire a doctor certified by a standard specifically designed to promote religious supremacy and superstition? Comparatively, even if the kid from Texas ends up going to college in Texas, how long before those degrees are viewed as inferior? It's not exactly fair that people should work their asses off for a degree that is not only useless in the marketplace, but also in the knowledge it signifies. Paul's poor standing cannot be blamed on partisan shennanigans alone. Most Americans, it seems, would rather not reach back centuries. The frontier mentality has some romantic appeal, but most folks seem to prefer modernity.