Schools risk U.S. funds if prayer isn't tolerated (States must Certify by March 15th)

Philadelphia Enquirer ^ | Sat, Feb. 15, 2003 | By Jim Remsen

[11th_VA]

I know it's late - am I dreaming?

[GrandmaPatriot]

This seems too good to be true. How did it get by so quietly? What a blow to ACLU.

[Richard Kimball]

The leftists, such as Barry Lind, have formulated an argument that claims that the restrictions against a government authorized faith means that schools must be a "religion free zone" are going to have conniptions. They've been very successful in claiming that the total absence of religion means that the government is neutral. Of course, the absence of religion is a de facto endorsement of athiesm. It means that only theories, concepts, etc, that to not include a creator are acceptable.

While I like the fact that we finally seem to have recognized that silencing all forms of religious expression does not equate with the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" guaranteed in the Constitution, I am disturbed that we now look to the courts to settle all Constitutional disputes. The courts have claimed the right of divine interpreter of the Constitution with no Constitutional authority.

Unfortunately, the Congress and the President have been all too willing to abandon their Constitutional mandates, as interpretation of the Constitution can be upsetting to some of their constituents. It is far easier to engage in the current bidding war for votes that is currently bankrupting the country than to take a stand as a statesman.

A friend of mine, commenting on Alan Keyes presidential bid, told me, "You can be an evangelist, or you can get elected. You can't do both. The voters want to know what you're going to give them."

Unfortunately, we have gone past the point of recognizing that accepting money from the government means accepting control from the government. When was the last time you heard, other than on FR, someone pose the argument of whether the government had the right to regulate certain areas?

[A. Morgan]

Praise the Lord. God Bless America.

[Bonaparte]

"...they are putting schools in a very precarious position."

Sounds good to me. "Disastrous positon," would be better still, but I'll settle for "precarious."

[Southack]

Nice! Talk about a stealth victory!

[RS]

Sure, now let's just spend a few 10's of millions fighting this in the courts -

Just sneak around behind people's backs and ram something through... Can you say this was very "Clintonesque" ?

[SunTzuWu]

...as part of the phase-in of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the sweeping law requiring greater performance by students and teachers.

Looks like the only person who wasn't paying attention was you.

[RS]

"Several other analysts interviewed this week, however, agreed with the department's stance that the instructions build on 1999 guidelines from the Clinton administration "

Clintonesque enough for you ?

[SunTzuWu]

So now the date goes back to '99. It's been sneaking up on you for 4 years?

[SunTzuWu]

Sorry to be so short with you... it's late. Perhaps you can explain how this is Clintonesque. I never heard of the clinton admin. promoting something that the left hates.

[doug from upland]

This will upset the left greatly. They would rather have kids learn fisting.

[RS]

My quote in Post 10 was from the original article, sorry if it came from '99, but that's what it was.
What this boils down to is the districts having to "certify" that they are already following the current regulations
This is akin to your company saying " you must certify that every employee under you has followed these rules before you get your paycheck "
If the rules are in place are we just rying to make sure they know what "is" is ?

[SunTzuWu]

"What we are trying to do," department chief counsel Brian Jones said yesterday, "is bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law by letting districts know exactly what the courts are saying and standardizing that view."

Can't get much clearer than that.

[Lancey Howard]

At first I swore this was a joke because this post has the name of the newspaper spelled wrong.
Glad to see it's for real!

Anyways, BUMP! for all the "not a dime's worth of difference" clowns.

[RS]

"...is bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law by letting districts know exactly what the courts are saying "

Sounds like they are saying "this is OUR interpretation of the law" - which invites more courts in to provide a lawfull clarification. ( which takes us back to my original post... )

They are saying that the courts decision is fuzzy, which gives cover to all those who interpreted it "wrong" -
Gee.. I didn't know...
... and an opening to a challenge with THEM having to testify that the original ruling was "fuzzy"

[Lancey Howard]

When was the last time you heard, other than on FR, someone pose the argument of whether the government had the right to regulate certain areas?

It is what Rush calls, "the liberal template". Arguments tend to take place within a box and it is rare that anybody in the lamestream scumbag news media ventures outside the box where the real questions are. Like, what is government doing in the education business to begin with?

[Lancey Howard]

Sounds like they are saying "this is OUR interpretation of the law" - which invites more courts in to provide a lawfull clarification.

Doesn't look that way:

The directive was approved by the Justice Department office of legal counsel, "which serves as the last word for interpretation of the Constitution," Jones said.

Amazing, no?
And here I thought the Supreme Court had that job description....

[Greybird]

It's amazing and dismaying to see just how many "defenders of the Constitution" will accept yet another gutting of the Tenth Amendment. That is, when it's to impose their own obsession on state and local governments, such as with "constitutionally protected [school] prayer."

Whether some such personal acts are protected or not, such impositions as the "No Child Left Behind" Act are trashings of the Constitution. In any event, a Democratic administration's Office of Legal Counsel may have quite different views about acceptable "prayer" ... or wiretaps, or warrantless searches, or stripping of citizenship. It'll be too late, then, to deny them the tools of abuse, won't it?