malcolmkirkpatrick.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Tak" wrote:...
>> >"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote:...
>>
>> > >Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>> > >to block vouchers is bogus.
>>
>:|MK. I agree. So do Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law), Benjamin
>:|Dowling-Sandor (American School Board Journal school law writer), and
>:|the US Supreme Court. In any case, your Legislature could achieve the
>:|same result (State-supported parent choice) through a clearly
>:|constitutional policy: mandate that districts --must-- hire parents on
>:|personal service contracts to provide for their children's education,
>:|if the parents apply for the contract. Parents could then homeschool,
>:|hire tutors, or send their children to independent schools.
>>
Ahhhhh the propganadist is back agoin spreding his misinforamtion once
again.
Excuse me what court does Laurence Tribe sit on?
What court does Benjamin Dowliong-Sandoer sit on?
Why do courts keep shooting down vouhers?
Explain the impact on the entire voucher situation Locke v Davey has
created.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/4edcf54eedbb63be...ode=sou
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/06b77af...492cf3?
and
NOW WE HAVE THIS AS WELL:
COURTS: A Decision of Consequence: The Supreme Court issued a
significant free exercise ruling on 25 February 2005 that portends a
potential obstacle for supporters of school vouchers and faith-based
initiatives. In a 7 to-2 vote, the High Court overturned a Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruling which held that Washington State's exclusion of
theology majors in its Promise Scholarship Program, which offers financial
assistance toward post-secondary education costs to academically gifted
students, unfavorably singled out religion in an unconstitutional manner
that did not satisfy a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court
disagreed, ruling that the Promise Scholarship Program offered an
acceptable level of inclusiveness of benefit to religion, as it allowed
those awarded assistance to attend accredited, private, church-affiliated
institutions and permitted students to enroll in courses in theology so
long as the scholarship is not utilized to solely fund pastoral education.
As such, the Court decided that neither the scholarship program nor the
Washington State Constitution demonstrated any unacceptable animus toward
religion. Thus the court could not "conclude that the denial of funding for
vocational religious instruction alone is inherently constitutionally
suspect."
[snip]
According to a report in The Christian Science Monitor (26 February
2004), the Court's ruling appears somewhat inconsistent with recent
decisions that have underlined a gradual trend of "government neutrality
toward religion and the religious rather than strict separation of church
and state." Some analysts view the decision as a redirection by the Court
in an effort to reaffirm the wall of church-state separation. Executive
director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry
Lynn, said that the Court's ruling would make the current voucher push
extremely difficult to maintain, especially in the majority of states where
constitutional barriers exist to prohibit government funding of any form of
ministry.
SOURCE: Journal of Church and State ,Volume 46, Number 2, Spring 2004,
J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies of Baylor University.
Features: Notes on Church-Stare Affairs, David W. Hendon and AaronTyler,
p. 432-3
*******************************************************
Civil Rights Report ADL in the Courts
Litigation Docket 2002
http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/Docket2002.pdf
[excerpt]
6
The Court
explained that “the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward
religion” and represented an effort by the State of Ohio to bring increased
opportunities to students who may be suffering due to problems of their
school district. The Court added that the vouchers were available to a wide
range of students, without regard to religious preferences, and that a
number of schools had the opportunity to admit voucher students. While the
Court added that students could use their vouchers in a “range” of schools,
it also admitted that 46 of the 56 private schools participating in the
Ohio voucher program were religious institutions.
DISTINGUISHING ZELMAN – WHY IT IS UNIQUE
While the Supreme Court upheld school vouchers in Zelman v. Simmons-
Harris, vouchers have not been given a green light by the Court beyond the
narrow facts of that case. Indeed, Cleveland's voucher program was upheld
in a close (5-4) ruling that requires a voucher program to (among other
things):
• be a part of a much wider program of multiple educational
options, such as magnet schools and after-school tutorial
assistance,
• offer parents a real choice between religious and non-religious
education (perhaps even providing incentives for non-religious
education),
• not only address private schools, but to ensure that benefits go
to schools regardless of whether they are public or private,
religious or not.
This decision also does not disturb the bedrock constitutional principle
that no government program may be designed to advance religious
institutions over non-religious institutions.
Finally, and of critical importance, as many state constitutions provide
for a higher wall of separation between church and state, voucher programs
will likely have a hard time surviving litigation in state courts.
Dissenting, Justice Stevens’ noted that less that five percent of Cleveland
students used vouchers during the 1999-2000 school year, demonstrating
that vouchers are not very instrumental in increasing educational
opportunities for most students. Further, Stevens wrote:
The fact that the vast majority of the voucher recipients who have
entirely rejected public education receive religious indoctrination at
state expense does, however, support the claim that the law is one
‘respecting an establishment of religion.
Further, Stevens argued that even if parents voluntarily choose to send
their children to parochial school, the state should not pay for this
religious education.
In an extremely vigorous separate dissent, Justice Souter noted that in
Cleveland, almost 97% of all of the students using vouchers were going to
religious schools. Souter reasoned that in Cleveland, the students could
not employ true choice in choosing which school to attend. First, because
the number of seat at nonreligious private schools in Cleveland was small,
Souter explained that even if every school accepted vouchers, few students
would be able to avail themselves of the educational opportunity. Second,
Souter noted that the voucher amount precludes non-religious private
schools, with higher tuition rates, from opening their doors to voucher
students. Ohio has spent more than $33 million of taxpayers’ money into the
voucher program since its implementation in 1996 (this figure is in
addition to the approximately $600 per student that Ohio sends to private
schools, in the form of textbooks, reading and math tutors, laboratory
equipment, and other school-related items). Most of this money is funding
religious education. It is deeply troubling that a majority of the Supreme
Court chose to ignore this critical fact in finding the voucher program
acceptable under the Establishment Clause.
THE BLAINE GAME
ADL will continue to oppose vouchers beyond our arguments in the federal
court system. Specifically, state constitutional provisions proscribing
government support for sectarian schools remain available as a strong means
of keeping religion out of our nation’s public schools.
The provisions’ namesake, Senator James G. Blaine, proposed an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the late 1800s that would preclude
public funds from reaching schools with sectarian influences. While the
House voted strongly in favor of the “Blaine Amendment,” it failed (albeit
by a small margin) to receive enough votes in the Senate. However, many
states adopted similar “Blaine Amendments” into their own constitutions.
These provisions remain viable means of preventing public funding of
religious schools.
*****************************************************
**********************************************
Charitable Choice Conference
Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Lin...
# Thursday, Jan. 17, 2002
# 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
# Thursday, Aug. 01, 2002
# 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
*********************************************************
I recommend as well
Steven K. Green
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/faculty/green.htm
his email is
sgr....DeleteThis@willamette.edu
Steven K. Green, "Of (Un)Equal Jurisprudential Pedigree: Rectifying the
Imbalance Between Neutrality and Separationism," 43 B.C. L. Rev. 1111,
1131-33 (September 2002);
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclaw...
**********************************************************
ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS
Steven K. Green. "Seminal or Symbolic?
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publicati
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
