[Hoodat]

So what part of the Constitution does this violate?

[MrB]

I think their fallback argument is that taxpayer money will be going to religious institutions, which the left says is a violation of the establishment clause.

This argument is entirely specious.

Vouchers are given to families who choose where to send their kids and that money.
It in no way is “establishing” the equivalent of a State Religion analogous to the Church of England.

[nathanbedford]

My guess (repeat, "guess") is that the court ruled that the voucher program is contrary to the Constitution of North Carolina rather than to the United States Constitution.

For me, the part of the article which was most striking was this:

the General Assembly is required to ensure students receive a sound education, and Hobgood said lawmakers can't delegate that authority to "unregulated private schools" and to parents "who have self-assessed their children to be at risk."

I'm confused by this because I assume that every private school in North Carolina is "regulated" and must already conform to state standards but I am struck by the quotation because of its assumptions:

1) that regulations produces sound education and, indeed, there cannot be sound education without regulation, and

2) that parents are not a legitimate institution to "assess" whether their children are at risk. Here we see yet another example of the state substituting its dominion over our children for the care and concern of parents.

Both of these assumptions are socialistic in character, they are indicative of a statist mentality, product of a "progressive" mind, and will inevitably lead to an authoritarian society.