Seems this legal construction dates way back to the orginal "separation of church & state" decision - but not to the Constitution.
It also seems, Congress and the courts should stand back and not do anything. Hands off !! No public funds for education with ANY strings attached. In other words - universal vouchers.
It's for our own good, doncha'know.
< /sarcasm>
It certainly isn't required of the many nations we give aid to, and it should not be required of States.
The states need to take back their power from the broken, over weight Federal government.
Vouchers are a good first step in that process (now that the Supremes decided that it is OK to use a voucher in a parochial school). It will not be a good long term solution because the Feds will start putting their rules on the vouchers and we will have gone from socialist public schools to fascist private schools (using the definition of fascism as control but not ownership of the means of production).
With the complete separation of school and state, there will be no basis for any rules by the government (it won't be "their" money)and all questions will be a matter for individual choice rather than political battle.
Activist lawyers, those being people who could not get their views of public policy enacted through the legislatures or via the executive branch, turned to the Courts. Since Judges, all of them being lawyers, have the same type of education as the lawyers (legal), they think alike and believe that a whole raft of issues which should be legislative are instead of Constituional moment.
The end result of this is that the Supreme Court now rules this country in major sections of what was previously public policy for the people to set through their elected representatives. Abortion, school prayer, prison conditions, death penalty, homosexual rights, etc., are all now outside public control and are in the hands of 9 unelected men and woman who are not interested in public opinion or desire. These men and women have been educated at law schools that teach a frame of mind (the legal outlook) which is decidedly not shared with the rest of the nation.
As for changing it? There is slim or no chance that the Supreme Court will retract its view that school action is public action. Branches of government do not willingly give up power. What is required is either a Constutitional convention or the privitization of public schools. I fear the first and support the second. A Constitutional convention now would most likely result in the Liberals ramming through all of their pet "rights" and the removal of the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court Game is rigged and Conservatives don't control the rules.
That has nothing to do with the way our system works! Get a clue. The constitution says what ever the judges say it says. It has been like that for 199 years.
If the justices say that the constitution says all persons who post on Free Republic with the name RAVEN are to be shot at sunrise tomorrow, don't make any plans for tomorrow afternoon.
I can't believe anyone who has observed the courts could believe that the words on that paper mean what they say to anyone on the court. It is obvious that they do not.
Some people argue that you have to have justices tell you what the words in the written constitution mean. Thus, they say, the judges have to interpret. Some one has to say what the words mean. That is like the liberals covering Hitler in 1935 when he said he was going to kill all the Jews in Germany. They asked what he meant by that. He meant he was going to kill all the Jews. These are the same people who ask what "Congress shall make no law" means. They argue that congress can make a "YES" law since it would not be a "NO" law. Yes we have no bananas or a written constitution in force.
The constitution was designed to be a self evident document. Madison worked long and hard to construct it so the meaning was clear to anyone who could read it. But the Supreme court decided in 1803 that it was not clear and they would have to tell the rest of us what it actually meant.
From that point forward when the words written in the constitution say what the judges want our law to be, they quote the words in the document. When the words written in the constitution do not say what the judges want our law to be, they just rule it says something else and ignore the document.
Changing this nation involves 4 steps.
1. First elect a president that shares your views.
2. Elect a senate that shares your views.
3. Nominate and confirm judges that share your views
4. When you have a clear majority on the court bring cases
before your court to be decided.
That is the way it must be done and in that order. Trying to make the case that the words in the constitution mean x to the judges is worthless. They know it says and means x, that does not stop them from ruling y.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is Section I of the 14th Amendment, which was passed by the Reconstruction Congress and ratified under dubious conditions by the Yankee States and carpetbagger legislatures in the Southern States. It was designed to keep the Southern States from making second class citizens out of the newly-freed slaves, and also to empower Congress to meddle in the States' affairs.
Courts struggled with this complex Amendment for years before finally concluding that the bold-faced language could only be workably construed as incorporating all the previous Amendments and rendering states subject to them. Thus, you have to plug in "State" where the 1st Am. says "Congress."
As any conservative legal scholar will tell you, the 14th Am. finished what Lincoln started: the complete destruction of the Founders' federalist system. Thus, when the federal courts divine a "right" to an abortion in the federal constitution, states are bound by it. When a federal court believes that neighborhood schools violate equal protection, forced bussing is ordered. When states want to experiment with welfare reform, they have to get by a battery of precedent which defines the "rights" of the state's welfare recipients. The 14th Am. empowers Congress to enact the freedom-destroying civil rights laws, the Am. w/ Disab. Act, etc., ad infinitum.
If we were ever to return to our original federalist, constitutional republican form of government, the 14th Am. would have to be repealed.
In the Summer of 1789, the Congress sent to the President, the Northwest Ordinance, for his signature; he signed it.
Article III of that Ordinance is the only section to address either religion or public education, and in it, the Founders couple them, declaring:Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
(Original Intent, by David Barton, pg. 41.)
My understanding was, that this was the reason "General" was created--so we don't have to deal with these trivial, "I've-Got-An-Opinion-That-Everyone-Needs-To-Hear-So-I'm-Posting-A-'News'-Article" posts on News/Activism.
I'm not sure but I suspect a lot of these are simply "newbies" who don't yet know the difference between Free Republic and an AOL chat room.
IMO, it is high time that Mr. Robinson dusts off one of his periodic "Please Don't Post Vanities" sermons.
Also, I would like to see more strict moderation on this subject. I log on to FR to read the NEWS and comment on the NEWS, not on someone else's comments. The etiquette has become, once again, woefully lacking on FR in this regard.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
Perhaps we could beat the liberals at their own game.
"Tax dollars used to promote religion" can be changed to "tax dollars to support liberal propaganda."
I can see the law suits now:
"John Doe is suing the government for forcing his child to participate in discussions of "Heather Has Two Mommies." His child felt uncomfortable discussing the topic in her first grade class at Pineview Elementary. . . Lawmakers are debating whether this constitutes the unlawful promotion of a political agenda in the public schools, which are supported by tax dollars. Doe is suing for $15 million. This landmark case could go all the way to the Supreme Court. . .
Posted wirelessly from my new PocketPC.
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.
William Flax