| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 07:40:42 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|I am tired of trying to discuss this topic as two separate and distinct
:|topics.
No your not. If you were really tired of discussing this in any form you
would stop.
Two things I can bank on.
Mention vouchers and (1) you and (2) Malcolm will show up sooner or later.
You're here, he will be shortly, probably. He has already shown in one of
these threads just the other day and made a comment about vouchers.
You made one statement back in April. you didn't support vouchers yet
well over a hundred and some posts and 4 months later your still making
PRO VOUCHER arguments.
Now you say you are tried of trying to pull the wool over every ones eyes
by trying to sell the "fib" its separate issues.
Yet you are still trying to do just that.
You are either doing a fantastic job of faking yourself out or you have a
problem with being truthful.
:|You constantly insist that talking about how vouchers might be used
:|should be decided before the issue of even having them in the first place.
:|You are looking at this backwards.
Seems to me you are the one who keeps saying when we get them, as if
getting them is a foregone conclusion.
The first issue that will have to be decided is a constitutional issue
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 06:53:28 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r5t4iv4cv6h9icho4ai5eq2o4hdf2a1qf5@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|I am tired of trying to discuss this topic as two separate and distinct
:|topics.
No your not. If you were really tired of discussing this in any form you
would stop.
Two things I can bank on.
Mention vouchers and (1) you and (2) Malcolm will show up sooner or later.
You're here, he will be shortly, probably. He has already shown in one of
these threads just the other day and made a comment about vouchers.
You made one statement back in April. you didn't support vouchers yet
well over a hundred and some posts and 4 months later your still making
PRO VOUCHER arguments.
Now you say you are tried of trying to pull the wool over every ones eyes
by trying to sell the "fib" its separate issues.
Yet you are still trying to do just that.
You are either doing a fantastic job of faking yourself out or you have a
problem with being truthful.
:|You constantly insist that talking about how vouchers might be used
:|should be decided before the issue of even having them in the first
place.
:|You are looking at this backwards.
Seems to me you are the one who keeps saying when we get them, as if
getting them is a foregone conclusion.
The first issue that will have to be decided is a constitutional issue
It has already been decided in the Supreme Courts of four different states.
Brace youself, I am bracing myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 07:35:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It has already been decided in the Supreme Courts of four different states.
Brace youself, I am bracing myself.
No it has not.
It was ruled in favor in Wisconsin on a narrow decision when there is
evidence of vote buying.
Ohio was decided in Federal Court.
Florida's has been ruled unconstitutional by its state supreme court.
Colorado hasn't likely made it to their supreme court, since it was
only recently passed.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 08:07:33 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:c5gbiv4uqitar60gqlk9rsgndseocgq2p0@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It has already been decided in the Supreme Courts of four different
states.
Brace youself, I am bracing myself.
No it has not.
It was ruled in favor in Wisconsin on a narrow decision when there is
evidence of vote buying.
Really? I haven't heard of this ...
Ohio was decided in Federal Court.
Even better.
Florida's has been ruled unconstitutional by its state supreme court.
Florida is the only state where I do not agree with you. I thought they had
drafted a plan that passed muster, there are just no districts using it yet.
Colorado hasn't likely made it to their supreme court, since it was
only recently passed.
Three for four. Not a bad percentage.
I think that Colorado's plan will be the most difficult to defend in court
because of the way it was enacted. If I recall correctly, the legislature
pushed it through and ignored the will of the voters. If ever there was a
law that required a 2/3s majority of registered voters, this is it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 11:05:08 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:c5gbiv4uqitar60gqlk9rsgndseocgq2p0@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It has already been decided in the Supreme Courts of four different
states.
Brace youself, I am bracing myself.
No it has not.
It was ruled in favor in Wisconsin on a narrow decision when there is
evidence of vote buying.
Really? I haven't heard of this ...
That's because you don't read all the stuff that jalison posts in
response to you.
Florida's has been ruled unconstitutional by its state supreme court.
Florida is the only state where I do not agree with you. I thought they had
drafted a plan that passed muster, there are just no districts using it yet.
I posted the news item. You can deny reality all you want, but the
court said that vouchers violate the state constitution.
Colorado hasn't likely made it to their supreme court, since it was
only recently passed.
Three for four. Not a bad percentage.
One or two for four.
I think that Colorado's plan will be the most difficult to defend in court
because of the way it was enacted. If I recall correctly, the legislature
pushed it through and ignored the will of the voters. If ever there was a
law that required a 2/3s majority of registered voters, this is it.
How it was enacted is totally irrelevant. Other states do not require
the legislature to have a 2/3 majority to override the voters, and in
fact, I don't think CA does either.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
29 Jul 2003 08:57:12 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
:|>news:c5gbiv4uqitar60gqlk9rsgndseocgq2p0@4ax.com...
:|>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>> >It has already been decided in the Supreme Courts of four different
:|>states.
:|>> >Brace youself, I am bracing myself.
:|>>
:|>> No it has not.
:|>>
:|>> It was ruled in favor in Wisconsin on a narrow decision when there is
:|>> evidence of vote buying.
:|>>
:|>Really? I haven't heard of this ...
:|
:|That's because you don't read all the stuff that jalison posts in
:|response to you.
Nope, he sure doesn't. I ***** him off too much pointing out he is a liar
with regards to vouchers and his support for them.
It's ironic, since early July 2002 I have gone toe to toe with this troll
on matters of the pledge, Newdow, constitution, establishment clause
etc and at times I have willingly called him what he was, ignorant, a
troll, stupid closed minded etc.
None of that bothered him till I called him a liar with regards to
vouchers. that was what caused him to put me on ignore. LOL
Some truths hurt more than others I guess. he seems far more sensitive to
being called out on his voucher smoke screen than on his trolling and total
ignorance on those other topics.
There are still some he will tolerate, even when they call him out (he says
its insulting him, I don't think it is possible to insult him) You are one
of those he will still read and reply to, even though you have called him
some of the same things I have. He has to tolerate some, or he would have
no one to "play" with.
of course the solution is to post the same facts to him that I do that he
runs away from by ignoring my posts. if everyone got into his face with the
same facts even her would have to deal with it or disappear for awhile
of course when he came back, her would be saying the same things all over
gain as any good troll does.
Ahhhh for the good ole days when there were more people willing to offer
and argue things other than their opinions, even when those things were
flawed.
Where is Barclay when you need him, hell even susupply would invent
alleged historical "facts" and try to argue them.
Gardiner, Childress, Carey, I'm not a republican, to name just a few who
would post that which they thought were historical facts only to be shown
they weren't, but damn sam, they would counter with more flawed "facts."
Now that was the fun days
Now it is just a steady stream of trolls.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberto Moreira" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
30 Jul 2003 06:45:40 AM |
|
|
Said "Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> :
California requires 2/3 affirmative vote for any tax or bond issue.
Given the mess CA is in, maybe it's time they start reviewing their
decision making processes ?
Alberto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tazmanian Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
30 Jul 2003 10:24:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:45:40 GMT, (Alberto
Moreira) wrote:
Said "Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> :
California requires 2/3 affirmative vote for any tax or bond issue.
Given the mess CA is in, maybe it's time they start reviewing their
decision making processes ?
One of the initiatives accompanying the recall vote is one that sets
the margin from 67% to 55%.
Alberto.
Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane crashes.
Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
30 Jul 2003 11:01:09 AM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Tazmanian Weasel
<zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> posted this drivel:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:45:40 GMT, (Alberto
Moreira) wrote:
Said "Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> :
California requires 2/3 affirmative vote for any tax or bond issue.
Given the mess CA is in, maybe it's time they start reviewing their
decision making processes ?
One of the initiatives accompanying the recall vote is one that sets
the margin from 67% to 55%.
Ahhhh, i didn't know that. I no longer live in CA but in the lovely state
of MI with its almost-8-percent unemployment rate.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
29 Jul 2003 08:42:22 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|> >It has already been decided in the Supreme Courts of four different
:|states.
:|> >Brace youself, I am bracing myself.
:|>
:|> No it has not.
:|>
:|> It was ruled in favor in Wisconsin on a narrow decision when there is
:|> evidence of vote buying.
:|>
:|Really? I haven't heard of this ...
Would you like the facts? I posted this about two years ago, that is ho
long it's been known.
:|> Ohio was decided in Federal Court.
:|>
:|Even better.
Not really. It only shows that you don't really understand what court
opinions mean. Rarely does one court opinion do it all.
I'm not going to stop to count, but I can safely say that from 1968 to
present there has been well over a dozen USSC rulings regarding vouchers,
aid to religious schools, aid to religion in general, etc and the final gun
still hasn't been sounded on the matter.
The court has already agreed to take another case next year dealing with
aid to religion, etc.
:|> Florida's has been ruled unconstitutional by its state supreme court.
:|>
:|Florida is the only state where I do not agree with you. I thought they had
:|drafted a plan that passed muster, there are just no districts using it yet.
Yes, you do have a habit of disagreeing with facts. You seem to have this
oddball mindset that your personal opinions trump actual facts.
Florida, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin have all
passed voucher laws. All have been found unconstitutional by the courts,
with the exception of:
Wisconsin's law, which, according to the People For the American Way
Foundation (PFAWF) is currently "under investigation by the state because
of a complaint filed by PFAWF and the NAACP." 1
THE VOUCHER SYSTEM IN CLEVELAND OHIO WAS
DECLARED CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE USSC IN JUNE 2002
As of 1999-APR, privately-funded voucher programs are available in at
least 39 American cities. The largest, funded by John Walton and Ted
Forstmann, was scheduled to award scholarships of up to $1,600 to 40,000
low-income students across the U.S.
However, even though the Cleveland model is compatible with the U.S.
federal constitution, voucher systems are still prohibited in many states
because they conflict with those states' constitutions. Analyst *****
Carpenter of the fundamentalist Christian group, Focus on the Family, said
that individual states present different challenges. He said: "As we look
at those state constitutions versus the recent federal ruling, it's going
to be incumbent upon the legislatures in many of those states, or people of
those states, to amend their constitution as such." 19
EXPERIENCE WITH PILOT PROGRAMS
Pilot studies were conducted in Milwaukee, WI and Cleveland, OH during
the late1990s. As noted above, voucher parents are more pleased with the
academic quality of their children's schools than are parents of children
in public schools. Indiana University researchers found that the average
class size in private schools was smaller but that the teachers in public
schools had better credentials and greater experience. The researchers
concluded that the two effects cancelled each other out. Voucher students
did better in fourth-grade academic achievement tests in language and
science, but the differences were "relatively small." In other tests,
reading, math, social studies and "total battery," there was no difference
between public and voucher students.
Florida:
The Florida voucher plan closely matches the national plan that is
currently proposed by Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a statewide voucher bill, the
Opportunity Scholarship Program, into law on 1999-JUN-21. It gave vouchers
of up to $3,389 a year, but only to children who attended schools which the
state evaluated as failures. A school rating of "F" for two out of four
years on the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test would allow
vouchers to be given to the parents of the schools' students. When the
program began in 1999-AUG, students in only two schools were eligible; both
are in Pensacola. 4
It is surprising that Florida's legislature would pass a voucher law that
could be used to fund education in a religiously-based private school. The
state Constitution clearly states, "[N]o revenue of the state or any
political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public
treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious
denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." While the Florida law
would not divert funds from the government directly to religious schools,
it would do so indirectly, through parents.
A coalition of groups, including the Florida PTA, League of Women Voters,
teacher's unions and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People was successful in challenging the funding scheme in court.
The law was declared unconstitutional by Leon County Circuit Court Judge L.
Ralph Smith, Jr. on 2000-MAR-14. He based his decision largely on Article
IX Section 1 of the Florida constitution which requires the school to
provide free education through public schools. It declares:
"The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of
the State of Florida...It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to
make adequate provision for the education of all children residing
within its borders...Adequate provision shall be made by law for a
uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality system of free public
schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for
the establishment, maintenance and operation of institutions of
higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of
the people may require..."
According to FPAWF, "The court overturned the program because of
arequirement in the Florida constitution that obligates the state to
provide all students with a 'high quality education' through a 'uniform,
efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.'
'Florida officials can't get around their constitutional duty to Florida's
schoolchildren by passing the buck to private and religious schools,' said
Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way Foundation, which
is a co-counsel in the case. 'It's time for Florida to put its money where
the kids are - in the public schools.' 1
Leon Russell, spokesperson for the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People in Florida commented: "The judge has made it
very clear. He's saying you can't take public dollars and give it [sic] to
private institutions because the people of the sate of Florida have said
[that] education is the prime responsibility and priority of the state." 7
Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association said: "This
ruling puts a stake in the heart of the voucher movement...It sends a
strong signal to states across the nation that vouchers are no substitute
for a quality public education."
[Author's note: This statement might be a bit optimistic. The judge's
decision was based on some very strong language in the Florida
constitution, that may well not be matched in many other states.]
8
Governor J. Bush promises to keep the program running, by raising private
funding. He characterized Judge Smith's decision as "the first inning of a
long, drawn-out legal battle." Governor Bush intends to appeal the court
ruling aggressively. Judge Smith ordered that the 53 children who took
advantage of vouchers will be allowed to finish their school year before
returning to the public school for their 2000-2001 academic year.
In 2002-AUG, a state judge ruled that Florida's Opportunity Scholarships
was unconstitutional under the state's constitution. The ruling was based
on the prohibition of government funding going directly or indirectly to
religiousorganizations. The decision will probably be appealed.
:|> Colorado hasn't likely made it to their supreme court, since it was
:|> only recently passed.
:|>
:|Three for four. Not a bad percentage.
Check again
Florida, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin have all
passed voucher laws. All have been found unconstitutional by the courts,
with the exception of:
Wisconsin's law, which, according to the People For the American Way
Foundation (PFAWF) is currently "under investigation by the state because
of a complaint filed by PFAWF and the NAACP." 1 [CAN WE SAY TAINTED]
THE voucher system in Cleveland Ohio was declared constitutional by the
USSC in June 2002
ADD THEM AGAIN
Try 2 out of 6.
:|I think that Colorado's plan will be the most difficult to defend in court
:|because of the way it was enacted. If I recall correctly, the legislature
:|pushed it through and ignored the will of the voters. If ever there was a
:|law that required a 2/3s majority of registered voters, this is it.
Colorado facts:
UPDATES TO THE UPDATE SERIES
Colorado school voucher program signed into law
State program is first since Supreme Court ruling
Thursday, April 17, 2003 Posted: 9:03 AM EDT (1303 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/17/colorado.voucher.reut/
***************************************
Press Release
May 20, 2003
Americans United, Allied Groups File Challenge To Colorado Voucher Law
Lawsuit In State Court Says Voucher Program Subverts State Ban Against
Public Funding Of Religion
http://www.au.org/press/pr030520.htm
***************************************
Voucher Violation [July/August-Church State]
Americans United, Allies File Lawsuit Against Colorado School Voucher
Scheme
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature3.htm
[strickland had offered]
:|Colorado's problem is going to be that the legislature decided to use them,
:|the voters have actually voted them down on at least two occasions. I think
:|this sort of plan will be ruled to require a 2/3 majority vote. They can't
:|be imposed by legislative action or by a simple majority.
The Colorado problem is
(1). The state constitution
(2) the people don't want them.
The Republican Party higher ups want it people and constitution be damned.
Another Judge Moore thingie.
[Colorado to take school vouchers step
State to be first with program since Supreme Court ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/08/school.vouchers.ap/index.html ]
[Who really represents the will of the people?]
A goal of conservatives for years, vouchers were twice rejected by Colorado
voters.
But the bill was pushed through the Legislature after Republicans won
control in November's elections,
with supporters saying it will give poor students a better education and
force public schools to
improve.
Democratic lawmakers say the voucher program could cost public schools as
much as $200 million in state aid based on the number of students.
The Colorado Education Association, representing 36,000 teachers, is
considering a legal challenge. It says the bill may violate guarantees
against giving tax dollars to religious institutions or any school not
under control of the state.
"The Legislature is blatantly ignoring both the Constitution of the state
of Colorado and the express wishes of the voters," CEA President Ron Brady
said.
===================================================
Colorado Constitution
http://i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/cnart9.htm
ARTICLE IX
Education
Section 2. Establishment and maintenance of public schools. The general
assembly shall, as soon as practicable, provide for the
establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free
public schools throughout the state, wherein all residents of the
state, between the ages of six and twentyone years, may be educated
gratuitously. One or more public schools shall be maintained in each
school district within the state, at least three months in each year; any
school district failing to have such school shall not be entitled to
receive any portion of the school fund for that year.
Section 3. School fund inviolate. The public school fund of the state
shall, except as provided in this article IX, forever remain inviolate and
intact and the interest and other income thereon, only, shall be expended
in the maintenance of the schools of the state, and shall be
distributed amongst the several counties and school districts of the state,
in such manner as may be prescribed by law. No part of this fund,
principal, interest, or other income shall ever be transferred to any
other fund, or used or appropriated, except as provided in this article IX.
The state treasurer shall be the custodian of this fund, and the same shall
be securely and profitably invested as may be by law directed. The
state shall supply all losses thereof that may in any manner occur. In
order to assist public schools in the state in providing necessary
buildings, land, and equipment, the general assembly may adopt laws
establishing the terms and conditions upon which the state treasurer
may (1) invest the fund in bonds of school districts, (2) use all or any
portion of the fund or the interest or other income thereon to guaranty
bonds issues by school districts, or (3) make loans to school districts.
Distributions of interest and other income for the benefit of public
schools provided in this article IX shall be in addition to and not a
substitute for other moneys appropriated by the general assembly for
such purposes.
Section 4. County treasurer to collect and disburse. Each county treasurer
shall collect all school funds belonging to his county, and the
several school districts therein, and disburse the same to the proper
districts upon warrants drawn by the county superintendent, or by the
proper district authorities, as may be provided by law.
Section 5. Of what school fund consists. The public school fund of the
state shall consist of the proceeds of such land as have heretofore
been, or may hereafter, be granted to the state by the general government
for educational purposes; all estates that may escheat to the state;
also all other grants, gifts or devises that may be made to this state for
educational purpose.
Section 7. Aid to private schools, churches, sectarian purpose, forbidden.
Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town,
township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any
appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever,
anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian
purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary,
college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled
by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any
grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made
by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for
any sectarian purpose.
Section 8. Religious test and race discrimination forbidden sectarian
tenets. No religious test or qualification shall ever be required of any
person as a condition of admission into any public educational institution
of the state, either as a teacher or student; and no teacher or
student of any such institution shall ever be required to attend or
participate in any religious service whatsoever. No sectarian tenets or
doctrines shall ever be taught in the public school, nor shall any
distinction or classification of pupils be made on account of race or
color, nor shall any pupil be assigned or transported to any public
educational institution for the purpose of achieving racial balance.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Every single leg of your evidence has just been shown to be incorrect.
FACT: There are ONLY TWO actual functioning voucher programs presently in
this country. TWO LIMITED programs, one in the city of Cleveland Ohio and
one in the city of Milwaukee, Wis.
FACT: The results from those two programs do not bear out all the fantastic
claims that pro voucher people have been making for years. The only real
accomplishment thus far has been to fatten the coffers of private k-12
religious schools.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
