Constitutional Question for Legal Freepers

Free Republic | June 30, 2002 | The Raven

[mvpel]

[tpaine]

Here's what Art. IV Sec. 2 says: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

In other words, states couldn't pass laws discriminating against immigrants from other states. If the original Constitutional scheme had been otherwise, the 14th Am. would not have been deemed necessary. Its intent from the beginning was to bring the Southern States to heel. The 14th has never been "hijacked." It is performing exactly as intended.

---

The 14th was 'deemed necessary' because states were violating the bill of rights, - [& in particular, gun rights] --- and had been since 1803, when the Barron v Baltimore decision claimed that they could ignore them. -- Hell, in a way, that decision helped lead to the civil war. -- It was the basis for the 'states rights' movement.

The history of the 14th is well documented in th congressional record. -- It was needed at the time. -- And it was then ignored, till the socialists recently found a new way to abuse it. -- Blame them for our problems, -- not the constitutional process itself.

[The Raven]

"...SC can see its way to turn the tide of SC jurisprudence on the application of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion clause"

Yes....can we overturn the construction since the church/state decision? Overturn the first domino and the rest fall. What court will do that?

[KC Burke]

Perhaps to go further about the history of public education (as concieved by our founders being a moral education as well) I sould cite examples.

In Connecticut:

In education, as in other aspects of colonial life, the church was the predominate force, and much teaching was of an ecclesiastical nature,3 and some modern historians find that education had a strong secular purpose as well. Colonial leaders tried to enforce the need to read the “holy word” by use of the Code of 1650 which required each town with fifty families to hire a schoolmaster to teach students to read and write. Towns of one hundred families were to open “Grammar Schools” to prepare students for studies at Harvard. Students entering these Grammar Schools were expected to be literate. This meant that families wishing their children to attend these schools had to take an active part in the child’s preparation. These laws were modified in 1662 to make then applicable to New Haven after its inclusion in the Connecticut Colony.4 In 1864 school property, like Church property, was made tax exempt.

.....xxxxx.....

In 1717 the General Assembly required every parish, in towns with more that one parish, to have a school. The upkeep of the school was to come from a tuition paid by the parents. However, the town covered the cost for anyone too poor to afford it.6 In those townships where no school-houses existed students received their instructions at the teachers’ home. When the teacher lacked a home the class would be rotated among the homes of the families whose turn it was to board the teacher.

.....xxxxx.....

: A new period of education in Connecticut began in 1795. In that year Connecticut parcelled and sold off to private purchasers areas of its Western Reserve in the Ohio Territory. The money from this sale was originally to be used as funds for the ministry. However, this idea met with so much opposition that the General Assembly decided to set aside this money for perpetual educational use,1 and it became the base for the state’s first School Fund.2 In 1798, the legislature transferred control of the public schools from the ecclesiastical societies of the town to the newly formed school societies.3 From now on, the schools would be maintained by a civil authority. A board of managers was established to control the public fund, and under James Hillhouse the board showed an annual dividend of nearly $50,000 after 1800.4 However, things did not go along as smoothly as hoped. It soon became clear that towns relied too much on the school fund. They became indifferent to the need for local funds to meet school needs and maintain standards. In 1821 the state property tax was discontinued thereby cutting off a major source of financial support.

In the following eighty years the funding of schools by public taxes was adopted and then later dropped, but then reinstituted on a cycle of about every ten years, showing the public distrust of taxation and expenditure but yet showing the public opinion of the necessity of educated citizenry as when unfunded the schools fell into great neglect when private as the bulk of the citizenry were uninterested in educating their children or insuring that it was done well by others.

[tpaine]

You are trying to salvage the unsalvageable.

---

Yep, that is pretty well why JR first founded this site. - To attempt restore some respect for our constitution.

---- I think its salvageable. -- Rejecting big government socialism would have to start on a local, then state level, by insisting that the feds follow the constitution to the letter of the law. -- Civil disobedience works.

[Spiff]

That's easy - it is the misapplication of the faux-ratified 14th Amendment. The Constitution was designed to create and limit the new, more centralized Federal government. The Bill of Rights was written as further clarification on the limits of the Federal government to not trample the rights of the people and the States. Unfortunately, sinced it was pretended that the poorly written 14 Amendment was ratified, it has been misapplied to make it so the limitations upon the 3 branches of Federal government also limits school teachers, local governments, business owners, etc. It is one of the most significant factors in the bloating of the FedGov, the trampling of our individual rights, and the metamorphisis from a small, limited Federal government to an overbearing national government.

Posted wirelessly from my new PocketPC.

[PatrioticAmerican]

bttt

[Free the USA]

Why would you want to turn into a liberal, twist the meaning of the Constitution and then use the courts to fight your battles instead of using the appropriate legislative forum?

[Bandolier]

That has NOTHING to do with the argument. The argument is by what means can the government force behavior one way or the other if the Constitution instructs government it can't touch the subject..

Oh, my apologies.

So, where does the Constitution tell the government what behavior its employees (agents) cannot exhibit, while on duty, regarding religion, and enforcing with their authority?

Oh!!! By their authority as government agents on duty, they cannot establish religion in the minds of captive children. OK, I get it.

[The Raven]

Why would you want to turn into a liberal

I'll skip that part !!!

[VA Advogado]

Note to The Raven: Interesting question. However, please ignore any constitutional theory put forth on this thread by our libertarian breathen. You'll only end up more confused. :)

[The Raven]

Good discussion above...what part did you find offensive?

[VA Advogado]

Good discussion above...what part did you find offensive?

None. I was just warning you for when the libertarians show up and start spouting their bizzare interpretations of the constitution.

[Free the USA]

I'll skip that part !!!

So does that mean that you are eager to further trash our Constitution by redefining its meaning to fit your agenda, the same way Liberals love to do?

[Roscoe]

Teachers aren't Congressmen.

Most Liberals and Libertarians are happy to see the power of central government used to impose an anti-God agenda on our local schools systems.

[The Raven]

>>So does that mean that you are eager to further trash our Constitution by redefining its meaning to fit your agenda, the same way Liberals love to do?

Me?? My agenda is the original Constitution - as written.

You sure you're reading my posts???

[Free the USA]

Explain how you think State funded public education is un-constitutional without distorting the meaning of the Constitution to do so. There is no doubt private education could do a better job but there is nothing in the US constitution that prohibits States from funding public education and most States Constitutions mandate it.

[The Raven]

>>Explain how you think State funded public education is un-constitutional without distorting the meaning of the Constitution to do so.

If the State attaches strings to funding. They should give you a check - ala the GI Bill.

[max61]

Most Liberals and Libertarians are happy to see the power of central government used to impose an anti-God agenda on our local schools systems.

Why should local school systems be used as indoctrination centers for theological beliefs at all of any kind?. Why do you think the government should have any perspective on theoligical issues pro or con?. Don't you believe it to be a wiser course of action to leave theological matters to those more suited to that end rather than have a bureaucrat interpret something?. Common sense dictates that if you want to screw something up, get the government involved, therefore I see no point in your statement, maybe you'd like to elaborate.

---max

[rwfromkansas]

bump....I especially am interested in the idea on here of trying to work through a business school relationship to make up for the govt. money. There really would be no way of attacking the decision of a public school to turn private then.

Is there any info online about schools that turned private (if there are any), and how they did it?