PART I
The following four part post takes the crux of fred's Jefferson, Reynolds,
Everson propaganda and shoots it down in flames
He will never admit it, yet it does just the same
Any and all can use in whole or in part any of this to continue to trash
the fred trolling propaganda as they see fit
As long as anyone is willing to humor him by replying to him, he will be
around
The following info is well researched, valid and demolishes his propaganda
on this particular topic of his
Jefferson, his letter to Daubury Baptist, Reynolds, Lying corrupt courts,
Everson, and so on
*******************************************************************************************
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=330&page=1#f2
U.S. Supreme Court
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP. et al. No. 52.
Argued Nov. 20, 1946.
Decided Feb. 10, 1947.
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1947
See 330 U.S. 855 , 67 S.Ct. 962.
Appeal from the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New jersey.
[330 U.S. 1, 2] Messrs. Edward R. Burke and E. Hilton Jackson, both of
Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. William H. Speer, of Jersey City, for appellees.
[330 U.S. 1, 3]
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules
and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 1 ] 'Whenever in any district there are children living remote
from any schoolhouse, the board of education of the district may make rules
and contracts for the transportation of such children to and from school,
including the transportation of school children to and from school other
than a public school, except such school as is operated for profit in whole
or in part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
'When any school district provides any transportation for public
school children to and from school, transportation from any point in such
established school route to any other point in such established school
route shall be supplied to school children residing in such school district
in going to and from school other than a public school, except such school
as is operated for profit in whole or in part.' New Jersey Laws 1941, c.
191, p. 581, N.J.Rev.Stat. 18:14-8, N.J.S.A.
The appellee, a township board of education, acting pursuant to this
statute authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for
the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the
public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of
transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial
schools. These church schools give their students, in addition to secular
education, regular religious instruction conforming to the religious tenets
and modes of worship of the Catholic Faith. The superintendent of these
schools is a Catholic priest.
The appellant, in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a
State court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of
parochial school students. He [330 U.S. 1, 4] contended that the statute
and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the
Federal Constitutions. That court held hat the legislature was without
power to authorize such payment under the State constitution. 132 N.J.L.
98, 39 A.2d 75. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed,
holding that neither the statute nor the resolution passed pursuant to it
was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of the
Federal Constitution in issue. 133 N. J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333. The case is
here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a).
Since there has been no attack on the statute on the ground that a part of
its language excludes children attending private schools operated for
profit from enjoying state payment for their transportation, we need not
consider this exclusionary language; it has no relevancy to any
constitutional question here presented. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 2 ] Appellant does not challenge the New Jersey statute or the
resolution on the ground that either violates the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding payment for the transportation of
any pupil who attends a 'private school run for profit.' Although the
township resolution authorized reimbursement only for parents of public and
Catholic school pupils, appellant does not allege, nor is there anything in
the record which would offer the slightest support to an allegation, that
there were any children in the township who attended or would have
attended, but for want of transportation, any but public and Catholic
schools. It will be appropriate to consider the exclusion of students of
private schools operated for profit when and if it is proved to have
occurred, is made the basis of a suit by one in a position to challenge it,
and New Jersey's highest court has ruled adversely to the challenger.
Striking down a state law is not a matter of such light moment that it
should be done by a federal court ex mero motu on a postulate neither
charged nor proved, but which rests on nothing but a possibility. Cf.
Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Com'rs of Emigration,
113 U.S. 33, 39 , 5 S.Ct. 352, 355.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, if the exclusion clause had been properly challenged, we do
not know whether New Jersey's highest court would construe its statutes as
precluding payment of the school [330 U.S. 1, 5] transportation of any
group of pupils, even those of a private school run for profit. 3
Consequently, we put to one side the question as to the validity of the
statute against the claim that it does not authorize payment for the
transportation generally of school children in New Jersey.
The only contention here is that the State statute and the resolution, in
so far as they authorized reimbursement to parents of children attending
parochial schools, violate the Federal Constitution in these two respects,
which to some extent, overlap. First. They authorize the State to take by
taxation the private property of some and bestow it upon others, to be used
for their own private purposes. This, it is alleged violates the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second. The statute and the
resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain
schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic
Faith. This is alleged to be a use of State power to support church schools
contrary to the prohibition of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth
Amendment made applicable to the states.
First. The due process argument that the State law taxes some people to
help others carry out their private [330 U.S. 1, 6] purposes is framed in
two phases. The first phase is that a state cannot tax A to reimburse B for
the cost of transporting his children to church schools. This is said to
violate the due process clause because the children are sent to these
church schools to satisfy the personal desires of their parents, rather
than the public's interest in the general education of all children. This
argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the
transportation of children to any non- public school, whether operated by a
church, or any other nongovernment individual or group. But, the New Jersey
legislature has decided that a public purpose will be served by using
tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of all school children, including
those who attend parochial schools. The New Jersey Court of Errors and
Appeals has reached the same conclusion. The fact that a state law, passed
to satisfy a public need, coincides with the personal desires of the
individuals most directly affected is certainly an inadequate reason for us
to say that a legislature has erroneously appraised the public need.
It is true that this Court has, in rare instances, struck down state
statutes on the ground that the purpose for which tax-raised funds were to
be expended was not a public one. Citizens' Savings & Loan Association v.
City of Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; City of Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 ,
1 S.Ct. 442; Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55 , 57
S.Ct. 364. But the Court has also pointed out that this far-reaching
authority must be exercised with the most extreme caution. Green v.
Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 240 , 40 S. Ct. 499, 501. Otherwise, a state's power
to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed, a power
which is a primary reason for the existence of states. Changing local
conditions create new local problems which may lead a state's people and
its local authorities to believe that laws authorizing new types of public
services are necessary to promote the general well-being [330 U.S. 1, 7]
of the people. The Fourteenth Amendment did not strip the states of their
power to meet problems previously left for individual solution. Davidson v.
New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 103 , 104 S.; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31
, 32 S., 5 S.Ct. 357, 360; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164
U.S. 112, 157 , 158 S., 17 S.Ct. 56, 62, 63.
It is much too late to argue that legislation intended to facilitate the
opportunity of children to get a secular education serves no public
purpose. Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 , 50
S. Ct. 335; Holmes, J., in Interstate Consolidated Street Ry. Co. v.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79, 87 , 28 S.Ct. 26, 27, 12
Ann.Cas. 555. See opinion of Cooley, J., in Stuart v. School District No. 1
of Village of Kalamazoo, 1878, 30 Mich. 69. The same thing is no less true
of legislation to reimburse needy parents, or all parents, for payment of
the fares of their children so that they can ride in public busses to and
from schools rather than run the risk of traffic and other hazards incident
to walking or 'hitchhiking.' See Barbier v. Connolly, supra, 113 U.S. at
page 31, 5 S.Ct. at page 359. See also cases collected 63 A.L.R. 413; 118
A.L.R. 806. Nor does it follow that a law has a private rather than a
public purpose because it provides that tax-raised funds will be paid to
reimburse i dividuals on account of money spent by them in a way which
furthers a public program. See Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301
U.S. 495, 518 , 57 S.Ct. 868, 876, 109 A.L.R. 1327. Subsidies and loans to
individuals such as farmers and home owners, and to privately owned
transportation systems, as well as many other kinds of businesses, have
been commonplace practices in our state and national history.
Insofar as the second phase of the due process argument may differ from the
first, it is by suggesting that taxation for transportation of children to
church schools constitutes support of a religion by the State. But if the
law is invalid for this reason, it is because it violates the First
Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion [330 U.S. 1,
8] by law. This is the exact question raised by appellant's second
contention, to consideration of which we now turn.
Second. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a 'law respecting an
establishment of religion.' The First Amendment, as made applicable to the
states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.
105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 146 A.L.R. 81,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105
commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' These words of the
First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental
picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp
out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity.
Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far has the
Nation moved toward it that the expression 'law respecting an establishment
of religion,' probably does not so vividly remind present-day Americans of
the evils, fears, and political problems that caused that expression to be
written into our Bill of Rights. Whether this New Jersey law is one
respecting the 'establishment of religion' requires an understanding of the
meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of
taxes. Once again, 4
------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 4 ] See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 162;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145
cf. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 89 , 106 S., 20 S.Ct. 747, 766, 772.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=178&invol=41#89
----------------------------------------------------------
therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and
environment of the period in which that constitutional language was
fashioned and adopted.
A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from
Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and
attend government favored churches. The centuries immediately before and
contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with
turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by
established sects determined to [330 U.S. 1, 9] maintain their absolute
political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting
them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants,
Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other
Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics
of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time
persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group
happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular
time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly
tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had
been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of
ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those
churches, expressions of non-belief in their doctrines, and failure to pay
taxes and tithes to support them. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 5 ] See e.g. Macaulay, History of England (1849) I, cc. 2, 4;
The Cambridge Modern History (1908) V, cc. V, IX, XI; Beard, Rise of
American Civilization (1937) I, 60; Cobb, Religious Liberty in America
(1902) c. II; Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (1939) c. II; Sweet,
Religion in Colonial America (194 ) 320-322.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
