Posted on 08/19/2010 4:59:34 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
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.
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.
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.