Court: Religious N.C. College Can't Have Police

Fox News ^ | August 19, 2010 | AP

[nmh]

RALEIGH, N.C. – A prestigious North Carolina private college cannot have police officers with the power to arrest suspects and enforce state law because the school is a religious institution, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

...

Allowing the school's security officers to carry out laws on behalf of the state violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against laws establishing religion by creating "an excessive government entanglement with religion," Judge Jim Wynn wrote in the unanimous opinion.

[ReignOfError]

Campus cops in Georgia, public or private, have the same powers as those in the locality of the campus; they have the same training and certification requirements.

[ReignOfError]

Home come SECULAR Universities and Colleges are allowed to protect themselves and apply the law to criminals?

That's going to be the key question on appeal. Colleges with a religious affiliation clearly serve a secular purpose -- they receive scholarship and grant money from federal and state governments, not to mention research grants. In fact, as long as it suits that secular purpose, it is unconstitutional to treat the school differently solely because of its religious affiliation.

[MrEdd]

You must have gotten your understanding of the law from the same place Orly Taitz did.

You must have learned to read from the Evelyn Woodhead sped redding course on Saturday night live, a source that also exhibits your entree capacity for logical thought perfectly.

Unlike you personally, and the poster I was addressing, I gave a specific, concrete example to back my point up. You and he lack the mental capacity to take a look at that specific example and try to refute it. There is every likelihood from your post that you are even capable of understanding the need to refute an argument and dissect an example instead of ignoring one.

Seriously, the fact that you're allowed to vote while being this ignorant is depressing.

Funny you should attempt to bring up ignorance. Certainly one of us is. Let's examine who that would be. The example I gave in the post you responded to was Roe V Wade. Did that overturn a century of judicial precedent as I asserted? What about Kelo V. New London? How about every other piece of judicial activism we have seen in the last 80 years? Were none of those issues things that had been ruled on another way before?

Or are you too stupid to read?

[The Pack Knight]

Funny you should attempt to bring up ignorance. Certainly one of us is. Let's examine who that would be. The example I gave in the post you responded to was Roe V Wade. Did that overturn a century of judicial precedent as I asserted? What about Kelo V. New London? How about every other piece of judicial activism we have seen in the last 80 years? Were none of those issues things that had been ruled on another way before?

Had those issues been ruled on by some higher court before? No. Yet you are using those cases as evidence for why the North Carolina Court of Appeals can ignore cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court, which is patently absurd.

How much the US Supreme Court (or state supreme courts on issues of state law) is bound by its own prior decisions is the subject of a great deal of argument. The degree to which inferior courts are bound by a Supreme Court's decisions is not.