"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.DeleteThis@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>"Tak" <notanemail.DeleteThis@youspambastards.com> wrote in message
>:|news:uvj0t0l73eiarosmreios7u5aej8109dmo@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
>> <oscar.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>> >to block vouchers is bogus.
>>
>> I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for public
>> education for any family able to prove recognised "alternate"
>> schooling for their children.
>>
>> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
>> desire.
>>
>> Seperation is still maintained that way.
>>
>
>:|That has been tried, and it doesn't work.
>
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.DeleteThis@yahoo.net> wrote:
>:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
>:|Prez.
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
**********************************************************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
[snip]
>:|There are lots of reasons to oppose vouchers, church-state separation isn't
>:|one of them.
And you are full of shit as has ben pointed out to you many times in the
past, dippy.
>:|Of course, the liberal justice system will not agree with me,
>:|but that is to be expected.
The Constitution doesn't agree with you nor does history. But that would
never enter your feeble brain.
* The Professor Marci A. Hamilton Series
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/hamilton.htm
The federalist Society For Law and Public Policy
Studies. Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Link...harchoi
* Why the Supreme Court's Recent Vouchers Opinion Was Wrong, and Also
Typical of the Court's Establishment Clause Approach
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020701.html
* Churches, Children, and Government Money: How Faith-based Initiatives
And Vouchers Can Increase Churches' Accountability
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020228.html
* Vouchers, Religious Schools, and the Establishment Clause: Why The
Supreme Court Will Probably Strike Down Ohio's Voucher System
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20011122.html
***************************************************************************************
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
**********************************************************************************
ULTIMATE VOUCHER SERIES Updated PARTS i-ix
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/brow...frm/thr
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L28F24C1A
79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw1.htm
80. A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and
Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for Its Support (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw2.htm
81. A Bill for Establishing a Public Library (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw3.htm
A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion
(1784)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/assessb.htm
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom (Passed December, 1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statute.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Issue Related Historical Data
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
***********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:32:22 GMT
Subject: ULTIMATE Series, Vouchers, updated
PART II
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In the late 1990s, a study of a pilot voucher programs in Cleveland
OH found that 80% of the vouchers were used to fund attendance at private
religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a New York state
voucher system was unconstitutional because its primary effect was to
advance religion. 3 The state had given tuition reimbursement payments to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools. In about 85% of
the cases, the schools were religious in nature.
Depending upon how the legislation is worded, government vouchers
may represent a snare to private schools. Referring to the "GI Bill for
Children" a federal voucher plan proposed by the Bush administration in
1992, the conservative Heritage Foundation warned that the plan "easily
could lead to onerous federal regulation of private schools...The Bush
proposal seeks to subject private schools to the onerous array of federal
civil rights laws. The bill lists six civil rights statutes and states that
'a school or provider of supplementary academic services that receives
scholarship funds under this Act shall, as a condition of participation
under this Act, comply with the statutes.' " 5
CURRENT STAUS OF VOUCHER SYSTEMS
:
Voters have rejected ballot initiatives to create voucher systems
STATE PAROCHIAID REFERENDA
STATE YEAR- AGAINST- FOR
New York 1967 72% 28%
Michigan 1970 57% 43%
Nebraska 1970 57% 43%
Oregon 1972 61% 39%
Idaho 1972 57% 43%
Maryland 1972 55% 45%
Maryland 1974 57% 43%
Washington 1975 61% 39%
Missouri 1976 60% 40%
Alaska 1976 54% 46%
Michigan 1978 74% 26%
D C 1981 89% 11%
California 1982 61% 39%
Massachusetts 1982 62% 38%
South Dakota 1986 46% 54%*
Massachusetts 1986 70% 30%
Utah 1988 70% 30%
Oregon 1990 67% 33%
Colorado 1992 67% 33%
California 1993 70% 30%
California 2000 71% 29%
Michigan 2000 69% 31%
--------------------------------------------------------
* The S Dakota vote was for a bill for funds to purchase books only for
k-12 private religious schools. (Something already found to be
constitutional nationally)
VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN OVERWHELMINGLY
REJECT SCHOOL VOUCHERS
http://www.au.org/press/pr118002.htm
The above only mentions Colorado once but do notice the size of the defeat.
Representatives elected to the state legislatures and Congress are suppose
to represent the citizens of their districts.
These defeats at the ballot box, with regards to vouchers, have not been
squeaker ya know 51% to 49%, or 50.5% to 49,5%
Florida, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin have all
passed voucher laws. All have been found unconstitutional by the courts,
with the exception of:
Wisconsin's law, which, according to the People For the American Way
Foundation (PFAWF) is currently "under investigation by the state because
of a complaint filed by PFAWF and the NAACP." 1
THE VOUCHER SYSTEM IN CLEVELAND OHIO WAS
DECLARED CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE USSC IN JUNE 2002
As of 1999-APR, privately-funded voucher programs are available in at
least 39 American cities. The largest, funded by John Walton and Ted
Forstmann, was scheduled to award scholarships of up to $1,600 to 40,000
low-income students across the U.S.
However, even though the Cleveland model is compatible with the U.S.
federal constitution, voucher systems are still prohibited in many states
because they conflict with those states' constitutions. Analyst Dick
Carpenter of the fundamentalist Christian group, Focus on the Family, said
that individual states present different challenges. He said: "As we look
at those state constitutions versus the recent federal ruling, it's going
to be incumbent upon the legislatures in many of those states, or people of
those states, to amend their constitution as such." 19
EXPERIENCE WITH PILOT PROGRAMS
Pilot studies were conducted in Milwaukee, WI and Cleveland, OH during
the late1990s. As noted above, voucher parents are more pleased with the
academic quality of their children's schools than are parents of children
in public schools. Indiana University researchers found that the average
class size in private schools was smaller but that the teachers in public
schools had better credentials and greater experience. The researchers
concluded that the two effects cancelled each other out. Voucher students
did better in fourth-grade academic achievement tests in language and
science, but the differences were "relatively small." In other tests,
reading, math, social studies and "total battery," there was no difference
between public and voucher students.
Florida:
The Florida voucher plan closely matches the national plan that is
currently proposed by Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a statewide voucher bill, the
Opportunity Scholarship Program, into law on 1999-JUN-21. It gave vouchers
of up to $3,389 a year, but only to children who attended schools which the
state evaluated as failures. A school rating of "F" for two out of four
years on the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test would allow
vouchers to be given to the parents of the schools' students. When the
program began in 1999-AUG, students in only two schools were eligible; both
are in Pensacola. 4
It is surprising that Florida's legislature would pass a voucher law that
could be used to fund education in a religiously-based private school. The
state Constitution clearly states, "[N]o revenue of the state or any
political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public
treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious
denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." While the Florida law
would not divert funds from the government directly to religious schools,
it would do so indirectly, through parents.
A coalition of groups, including the Florida PTA, League of Women Voters,
teacher's unions and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People was successful in challenging the funding scheme in court.
The law was declared unconstitutional by Leon County Circuit Court Judge L.
Ralph Smith, Jr. on 2000-MAR-14. He based his decision largely on Article
IX Section 1 of the Florida constitution which requires the school to
provide free education through public schools. It declares:
"The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of
the State of Florida...It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to
make adequate provision for the education of all children residing
within its borders...Adequate provision shall be made by law for a
uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality system of free public
schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for
the establishment, maintenance and operation of institutions of
higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of
the people may require..."
According to FPAWF, "The court overturned the program because of
arequirement in the Florida constitution that obligates the state to
provide all students with a 'high quality education' through a 'uniform,
efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.'
'Florida officials can't get around their constitutional duty to Florida's
schoolchildren by passing the buck to private and religious schools,' said
Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way Foundation, which
is a co-counsel in the case. 'It's time for Florida to put its money where
the kids are - in the public schools.' 1
Leon Russell, spokesperson for the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People in Florida commented: "The judge has made it
very clear. He's saying you can't take public dollars and give it [sic] to
private institutions because the people of the sate of Florida have said
[that] education is the prime responsibility and priority of the state." 7
Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association said: "This
ruling puts a stake in the heart of the voucher movement...It sends a
strong signal to states across the nation that vouchers are no substitute
for a quality public education."
[Author's note: This statement might be a bit optimistic. The judge's
decision was based on some very strong language in the Florida
constitution, that may well not be matched in many other states.]
8
Governor J. Bush promises to keep the program running, by raising private
funding. He characterized Judge Smith's decision as "the first inning of a
long, drawn-out legal battle." Governor Bush intends to appeal the court
ruling aggressively. Judge Smith ordered that the 53 children who took
advantage of vouchers will be allowed to finish their school year before
returning to the public school for their 2000-2001 academic year.
In 2002-AUG, a state judge ruled that Florida's Opportunity Scholarships
was unconstitutional under the state's constitution. The ruling was based
on the prohibition of government funding going directly or indirectly to
religiousorganizations. The decision will probably be appealed.
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
Phi Delta Kappa and the Gallup Organization have conducted seven polls on
school vouchers between 1993 and 2000. Unfortunately, the main question is
poorly worded, because it lumps together current voucher proposals which
only cover a portion of private school tuition with the concept of the
state paying 100% of tuition. In addition, it does not differentiate
between religious and secular private schools.
"Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private
school to attend at public expense."
Year
% favor
% oppose
% undecided
1993
24
74
2
1995
33
65
2
1996
36
61
3
1997
44
52
4
1998
44
50
6
1999
41
55
4
2000
39
56
5
ADDITIONAL DATA
76% felt that if private or religious schools accept funds from the
government, that they should be accountable to the state in the same way as
the public schools are.
75% preferred "improving and strengthening the existing public
schools" rather than "providing vouchers for parents to use in selecting
and paying for private and/or church related schools."
41% of the respondents felt that the Democratic party was more
interested in improving public education than the Republican party; 29%
felt the reverse.
When the year 2000 results were announced on 2000-AUG-21, Brent Walker,
Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee said that the survey
"indicates that the American public is seeing through the misguided
arguments of the pro-voucher forces." 15
>> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
