Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

My argument is not off topic nor is it irrelevant. I have asked my opponent on how she proposes this issue be solved and she has stated that the US government should administer it. She has stated before that we should have foreign languages taught in school, and I only asked to clarify her stance on the issue. My opponent's ultimate resolution on the issue is that the US government should require all schools to offer a foreign language. That means my opponent is arguing for it to be Common Core (as mandatory education essentially is common core). I have proven it was unconstitutional and my opponent has only provided a fallacious rebuttal. Yes, there are government imposed things on state regulations for schools, but that is through only the Commerce and General Welfare clauses of the US constitution. Seeing as foreign languages falls under neither category, that is therefore irrelevant to our debate. Common core is regulated by the NGA and CCSSO, according to http://www.corestandards.org... -> Overview -> Who led the development of the Common Core State Standards?. The NGA is the National Governors Association Center and the CCSSO is the Council of Chief State School Officers and: "The actual implementation of the Common Core, including how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers as they help students reach the standards, is led entirely at the state and local levels."That is the only one of my opponent's examples that a foreign language pertains to, and I have proven it wrong. My opponent has then stated that the US government can require Foreign Languages being taught at school through bribery. Not only does she not have any proof of it working in the past, but it is unlawful. "The General Federal Bribery Statute punishes the offence of bribery in the U.S[iii]. According to 18 USCS prec § 201(b), whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offence of bribery. The punishment prescribed by the statue is a fine of an amount not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both. Additionally he/she can be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the U.S government." - See more at: http://bribery.uslegal.com...So even if I were to allow my opponent to take that back (note: this does not mean am I allowing my opponent take it back) , my opponent has yet to provide a constitutional way for this to happen. (Logically we would go to the NGA and CCSSO to propose making foreign languages. I have no objection to that.) The best my opponent can do is argue she did not mean for the US government to regulate it. So unless my opponent wins this point with one last, irrefutable round, and then continues to offer irrefutable arguments why foreign languages are beneficial, I believe I have won this debate. I also would like to point out for future reference that being knowledgeable in all aspects about a topic before debating it helps, as then your opponent would not easily find a loophole in your argument and use it against you.