"Mr. Thorne" <lyricalreckoner DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>:|in article ik1q3055v19pv7s7ufesb703f9bfhmgcv2 DeleteThis @4ax.com,
>:|buckeye_ELO@nospam.net at buckeye_ELO DeleteThis @nospam.net wrote on 25 02 2004 12:33:
>
>>
>> US Top Court Upholds Religion Scholarship Ban
>> http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=825564&t
>> w=wn_wire_story
>>
>> This means all those state "Blaine" amendments in state constitutions
>> stand. The court rejected the discrimination argument advanced by ACLJ's
>> Jay Skeulow
>
>:|Blaine amendments were not at issue. If you read the transcript of oral
>:|argument, one justice questioned whether the provision was one of those
>:|amendments. It ain't.
Actually, if you want to get totally technical. there are no such things as
"Blaine Amendments" in state Constitutions. There is language in the vast
majority of state Constitutions that people incorrectly call "Blaine
Amendments."
To the above I will add the following that I used in a reply to another.
*************************************************************
Newsgroups:
alt.education,misc.education,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The Reality of School Vouchers
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:00:45 -0500
malcolmkirkpatrick DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|MK. It does matter that Blaine amendments are or are not ruled
>:|unconstitutional in a case where the issue does or does not arise.
>:|Rhenquist could hardly use a SEC stock-parking case to make this
>:|ruling, for example.
Now, to be quite honest, you are correct. There are no such things as
Blaine Amendments in state constitutions.
There is language that some people like to call Blaine Amendments.
However, such labeling is inaccurate.
There were two major items with regards to the Washington Constitution that
came into play to some degree here.
One was
ARTICLE I -- Declaration of Rights
SEC. 11. Religious Freedom
And
ARTICLE IX -- Education
SEC. 4. Sectarian Control or influence prohibited
==========================================
From a footnote of the opinion:
"The enabling Act of 1889, which authorized the drafting of the Washington
Constitution, required the state constitution to include a provision “for
the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall
be … free from sectarian control.” Act of Feb. 22, 1889, ch. 180, §4,
¶Fourth, 25 Stat. 676. This provision was included in Article IX, §4, of
the Washington Constitution (“All schools maintained and supported wholly
or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control
or influence”), and is not at issue in this case. Neither Davey nor amici
have established a credible connection between the Blaine Amendment and
Article I, §11, the relevant constitutional provision. Accordingly, the
Blaine Amendment history is simply not before us."
================================================
See that even agrees with you, sort of. But not so fast (grin)
=================================================
From the ACLJ wet site:
Education
Locke v. Davey
U.S. Supreme Court
The ACLJ filed suit against the State of Washington when it rescinded
Joshua Davey's Promise Scholarship because he chose to major in theology at
a Christian College. There was no dispute that Davey was otherwise entitled
to the scholarship under the state's neutral criteria. Citing its state
establishment clause prohibiting aid to sectarian colleges, the state
withdrew the scholarship after Davey declared his major. The Supreme Court
has granted review in this case to resolve the question whether the State
of Washington violated Davey's right to the free exercise of religion under
the First Amendment. Jay Sekulow will be arguing the case in December 2003.
=======================================================
http://www.aclj.org/ussc/daveylocke/Brief%20for%20Respondent.pdf
2. The state's profession of an innocent motive is irrelevant.
The state argues that it harbors no malice toward religion, and
that the restrictions at issue were enacted for good motives. E.g.,
Pet. Br. at 21. "But good intentions as to one valid objective do
not serve to negate the State's involvement in violation of a
constitutional duty." Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 466
(1973). The discriminatory restriction on clergy at issue in
McDaniel purported to be admiring and solicitous of the religious
duties of ministers, 435 U.S. at 621 n.1 (preamble to state
constitutional restriction: "Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by
their profession, dedicated to God and the care of Souls, and ought
not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions");
nevertheless, this Court unanimously held the restriction
unconstitutional. See also Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 559 (Scalia, J.,
concurring) ("Nor, in my view, does it matter that a legislature
consists entirely of the pure-hearted, if the law it enacts in fact
singles out a religious practice for special burdens").8
8 This discrimination is even more evident in light of the
invidious anti-Catholic bigotry of the Blaine Amendments, see Opp. at 16, a
bigotry recognized in opinions joined by a majority of the members of this
Court. See Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 828 (2000) (plurality opinion
of Thomas, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ.);
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 720-21 (2002) (Breyer, J., joined
by Stevens and Souter, JJ.). Cf. Brief of American Jewish Congress et al.
at 26-30 (conceding taint of "raw anti-Catholicism" (at 26) but arguing
that fear of Catholicism was a "legitimate" (at 27) response to "infamous"
(at 2
Catholic teachings). See also Brief of Historians and Law Scholars
at 18 ("it is indisputable that anti-Catholic animus motivated many
supporters of the [Blaine] amendment and colored the debates surrounding
its near enactment"); id. at 2, 14, 17, 23, 25 (conceding anti-Catholic
taint).
*******************************************
Actually what the H & LS brief said was this:
http://pewforum.org/school-vouchers/locke/Historians.pdf
The Blaine Amendment of 1876 has been maligned as an unfortunate
episode in Catholic bigotry. See Mitchell, 530U.S. at 828-29.47 Although it
is indisputable that anti-Catholic animus motivated many supporters of the
amendment and colored the debates surrounding its near enactment, this is
an incomplete account. The Blaine Amendment was the culmination of eight
years of heightened attention to and conflict over the "School Question."
Arising in the years following the Civil War, the School Question involved
more than a concern about parochial school funding; that issue was part of
a larger controversy over the responsibility and role of the federal
government in public education, over whether that education should be
truly universal for all social and economic classes and races (including
the children of recently freed slaves), over ensuring the financial
security of the still nascent public education system, and over whether
that education should be secular, nonsectarian (i.e., watered-down
Protestantism), or more religious.48 The battle lines were not drawn solely
between Catholics and nativists but involved other groups and concerns:
liberal Protestants, free-thinkers, and Jews who opposed the religious
exercises and nonsectarian character of the nation's schools; conservative
Protestants who sought to preserve or increase the Protestant character of
many public schools; education and civil rights reformers who sought a
larger government role in funding and regulating public education;
Democratic and Republican partisans who had little interest in education
issues but viewed Catholics as a voting block to cultivate or demonize;
and state-rights advocates who saw no government role in education,
particularly at the federal and state levels. Also, it is inaccurate to
speak of a Blaine Amendment, particularly as a concept or model for the
Enabling Act or state constitutional provisions. Rather, the 1870s
witnessed multiple proposals for a education-related constitutional
amendment – President Ulysses Grant's proposal; James G. Blaine's initial
proposal; a Democratic alternative; secularist proposals and
ultra-conservative religious proposals; the House- passed version; and the
failed Senate version – all of which contained different language and
received varying levels of support and opposition. 49 As addressed below,
Blaine's original proposal received much greater support among Democrats
and Catholics than the final Senate version. 50 The Enabling Act and the
Washington Constitution more closely track the original Blaine proposal
than the final Senate version.
===================================================
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear School Choice Case December 2
http://www.capenet.org/pdf/Outlook288.pdf
[Excerpt]
1st and 14th Amendments
Davey’s brief, filed by Jay Alan Sekulow of the American Center for Law &
Justice (ACLJ), claims that the state’s denial of Promise Scholarships
solely to theology majors runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause, the
Establishment Clause, and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,
as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Governor Locke, represented by Attorney General Christine O.
Gregoire, argues that his state’s constitution (Article 1, Section 11)
prohibits the use of public money for religious instruction and that the
federal Constitution does not require the state to provide scholarships to
divinity students. Article I, Section 11 reads in part, “No public money or
property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship,
exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment.”
But the ACLJ brief counterclaims that to Washington’s that ban
state aid for religious instruction and schools. Known as Blaine amendments
(after James G. Blaine, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
from 1869 to 1875), they have been interpreted by various state officials,
lawmakers, and judges to disallow programs of assistance (e.g. textbooks
and bus transportation) to children in religious schools that would
otherwise be considered valid under the federal Constitution.
A broad ruling by the Supreme Court could strike a severe or even
fatal blow to Blaine restrictions. Indeed, various briefs filed by school
choice supporters encourage the high court to do just that.
Rooted in Religious Bigotry
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reminds the court of the
anti-Catholic bigotry that prompted the enactment of state Blaine
amendments during the 19th century and early years of the 20th century.
Referring to this anti-religious bias, the Becket brief says, “This case
presents the court with the opportunity to expose it and condemn it, once
and for all — to tear out, root and branch, the state constitutional
provisions that have enforced religious discrimination in the funding of
education for well over a century.”
[end excerpt]
===============================================
Now, Rehnquist wrote a narrow opinion, and did not grant that which many
were hoping for. Now you cannot make a valid case that this doesn't have
any meaning at all with regards to the various state constitutions. if you
think that is true you need to go out and live at Never Never Land with M.
Jackson.
From the majority opinion:
"The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of
instruction. Even though the differently worded Washington Constitution
draws a more stringent line than does the Federal Constitution, the
interest it seeks to further is scarcely novel."
==================================================
The opinion did uphold the right of states to have clauses that are more
strict than the Federal Constitution, in this case the Establishment Clause
of the U S Constitution.
So again, if you think this has no meaning with regards to such language
that is found in most of the state Constitutions you are mistaken.
I would agree with you in the following. Using the same language in the
same Constitution Washington ruled Witters unconstitutional and the USSC
overruled that.
Now the court turns around and says such language is nothing novel and
rules the other way. How does that statement go, something about the webs
we weave when we try to deceive.
Just another shaky column in the foundation that this whole aid to religion
is ok stands on. One that won't be so hard to shake and cause to tumble
down at some future time with a different mindset in the country and a
different make up of the USSC.
************************************************************
This also went to the same fella in a separate reply to him:
Oh, are you now claiming that the Locke v Davey ruling has nothing to do
with the various so called Blaine Amendments?
Gee, wow, amazing that pundits for both sides said the exact opposite
leading up to this decision.
I'll see if I can find the briefs on line that were filed in favor of Davey
and see if the so called Blaine Amendments were given any importance in
them.
This brief focuses heavily on them
Amici are legal and religious historians and law scholars who have studied,
taught and written in the area of constitutional and religious history and
the First Amendment in law schools and undergraduate schools across
America.
http://pewforum.org/school-vouchers/locke/Historians.pdf
Why do you suppose if it had no importance a bunch of historians, religious
historians and legal scholars would write a brief that focused heavily on
something that had no importance to the case?
**************************************************************
I sent this also to the same character:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS, a nationwide movement that defends
civil rights for non-believers; works for the total Separation of
Church and State; and addresses issues of First Amendment public
policy."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SUPREMES UPHOLD BLAINE STATUTE BARRING USE OF PUBLIC AID
FOR RELIGIOUS TRAINING
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that states may exclude students
studying for careers in divinity and theology from receiving public
college tuition scholarships.
The 7-2 decision in the LOCKE v. DAVEY case upheld a Washington State
statute forbidding the use of public funds to assist any religious
institution or practice. Informally known as "Blaine Amendments,"
similar provisions are found in the constitutions of nearly
three-dozen states.
Justices noted that the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free
exercise of religion does not mean that taxpayers must subsidize
training for religious professionals, even if money is available for
those seeking degrees in other areas.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious
endeavor," wrote Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. "That a state
would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than
with education for other callings" is not evidence of "hostility
toward religion," he added.
The court rejected arguments that the exclusion of students pursuing
careers as religious clerics from the state's Promise Scholarship
Program was an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of
religion.
Instead, noted the court, the program "imposes neither criminal nor
civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite ... It does
not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political
affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose
between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit."
Rather, said Rehnquist, "the state has merely chosen not to fund a
distinct category of instruction."
"Blaine Amendments," Separation, Fairness
Although overshadowed by high-profile cases involving display of the
Ten Commandments or the inclusion of "under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance, LOCKE v. DAVEY has been central to the widening
discussion about public funding of religion. President Bush, for
instance, has used his power of Executive Orders to divert hundreds of
millions of dollars to religious groups, and make churches and other
houses of worship eligible for billions more in public contracts in
order to operate faith-based social services. The White House is also
defending voucher initiates at both the state and federal level which
reimburse parents for costs in sending their children to religious
schools.
Other federal and state initiatives propose using public money to
repair and rehabilitate "historic" churches and other religion-linked
venues.
Standing in the way of this expansive program assisting organized
religion are the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and nearly
three-dozen state constitutional amendments like the one in
Washington. Known loosely as "Blaine Amendments," they are named
after James G. Blaine (1830-1893), a lifelong Republican and former
Speaker of the House of Representatives. In 1875, Blaine proposed a
federal constitutional amendment which stipulated:
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by
taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived
from any public fund, therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto,
shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any
money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects
or denominations."
The amendment was narrowly defeated in the Senate. As more states
joined the union, however, many legislatures included a version of
this "Blaine Amendment" in their respective constitutions.
Critics of the statutes have tried to link the Blaine amendments with
anti-Catholic animus which was rampant in a mostly-Protestant America
during the late nineteenth century. They also insist that such
restrictions clearly discriminately against religious groups and
practices. Organizations ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the
Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty consider the amendments a major
obstacle to school voucher programs, and have mobilized legal support
in cases that might overturn the statutes -- as in the LOCKE v. DAVEY
suit.
In July, 2002, a panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
struck down the Washington State law. Jay Sekulow of the American
Center for Law and Justice argued that the ruling was "a resounding
victory for equal treatment of people of faith."
Other decisions appear to have threatened weakened both the Blaine
Amendments and a strict separationist interpretation of the federal
First Amendment, particularly the Establishment Clause.
* In MITCHELL v. HELMS, the court ruled 6-3 that public money could
be used to provision materials to students attending religious
schools. This included textbooks, computers and other supplies.
* In ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, justices upheld the constitutionality
of a voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio that reimbursed parents for
the cost of sending youngsters to religion-affiliated schools. Most
of the schools participating in the voucher agreement were operated by
the Roman Catholic Church. The court majority at the time held that
the program did not have the effect of advancing a particular religion
since parents received the money had had a "choice" of schools.
Confused? Critics say that the high court is sending muddled, even
contradictory signals concerning how far government may go in
assisting religious groups.
* In 1969, the Washington State legislature enacted a law declaring:
"No aid shall be awarded to any student who is pursuing a degree in
theology."
The statute was based, in part, on Article 1 Section 2 of the state
constitution that provides:
"No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to
any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any
religious establishment."
Three decades later, the state established the Promise Scholarship
Program to aid students for post secondary education expenses. Money
for the program came from the State's general fund. One of the
recipients was Joshua Davey, who wanted to use the award for tuition
at Northwest College, a private institution operated by the Assemblies
of God denomination. According to his original brief, Davey had
"planned for many years to attend a Bible college and prepare
(himself) through that college training for a lifetime of ministry,
specifically as a church pastor."
When Davey learned that he could not use the Promise Scholarship funds
to pursue a divinity degree, he sought legal relief in federal
District Court arguing that the denial violated the Free Exercise,
Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as well
as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
District Court rejected the claim and the case was heard before the
Ninth Circuit. There, a panel of judges ruled that the Washington
state law "singled out religion for unfavorable treatment," and
declared the scholarship program unconstitutional. The court relied,
in part, on the 1993 Supreme Court ruling in CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI
BABAL HIALEAH case.
That ruling concerned a sect which practiced the Afro-Caribbean
rituals of Santeria, including animal sacrifice as a form of worship.
The City of Hialeah, Florida had several ordinances prohibiting such
ritualistic slaughter. The high court found, though, that these local
laws imposed a burden on religious rights and were narrowly tailed to
discriminate against a particular faith.
Davey argued that the Washington state law and its application in the
Promise Scholarship Program was "presumptively unconstitutional"
because it was not neutral in respect to religion.
The Supreme Court disagreed, though.
* The Washington State Program, said the majority imposes a disfavor
of religion ("if it can be called that") which is "of a far milder
kind" than described in the CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE case.
"It imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions of any type of
religious service or rite."
* The court noted: "Since the founding of our country, there have
been popular uprisings against procuring taxpayer funds to support
church leaders, which was one of the hallmarks of an 'established'
religion."
* "Most States that sought to avoid an establishment of religion
around the time of the founding placed in their constitutional formal
prohibitions against using tax funds to support the ministry ... The
plain texts of these constitutional provisions prohibited ANY tax
dollars from supporting the clergy."
How far the precedent in LOCKE v. DAVEY can be used in stopping the
federal faith-based initiative remains to be seen. Federal and even
state courts often give wide latitude to programs that might benefit
religion institutions if the money is spent for "secular" activities
(such as purchasing non-religious textbooks, equipment and other
items) or "laundered" through state and private agencies.
"We think today's ruling draws the line at the most egregious
attempts to use public money to benefit religious groups and
practices," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.
"It also provides those of us who support the 'Blaine Amendments' and
similar statutes more legal precedents to keep these important
restrictions in place, and make sure that Americans are never subject
to the imposition of a 'Religion Tax,' "
>> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
