| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 05:59:00 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
:|On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|
:|> > >Florida has approved vouchers, but no district has imposed them as yet.
:|
:|> > because the state court has ruled them state-unconstitutional.
:|
:|> I am not aware that they were ruled unconstitutional, in fact I thought they
:|> passed muster but the districts just haven't decided to use them.
:|
:|It was in the newspapers and on radio and TV.
:|
:|Jeb appealed to the first District Court of appeals.
:|
:|There may be something here:
:|
:|http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2939
Back in April of this year, I posted what I titled the ULTIMATE VOUCHER
POST.
However, Google didn't pick it up, it was too many lines.
So I broke it down into 9 posts titled the ULTIMATE Series, Vouchers,
updated
It was put together specifically for Jeffy here. In particular because of
his comments back in April about Florida.
You might want to copy and save the URLs for it because it is a very
comprehensive discourse on vouchers and contains answers for most of the
points the pro voucher side tries to make, at least as far as church state
and vouchers is concerned.
Now for the point that Jeffy is trying to make here one would go to:
------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In the late 1990s, a study of a pilot voucher programs in Cleveland
OH found that 80% of the vouchers were used to fund attendance at private
religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a New York state
voucher system was unconstitutional because its primary effect was to
advance religion. 3 The state had given tuition reimbursement payments to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools. In about 85% of
the cases, the schools were religious in nature.
Depending upon how the legislation is worded, government vouchers
may represent a snare to private schools. Referring to the "GI Bill for
Children" a federal voucher plan proposed by the Bush administration in
1992, the conservative Heritage Foundation warned that the plan "easily
could lead to onerous federal regulation of private schools...The Bush
proposal seeks to subject private schools to the onerous array of federal
civil rights laws. The bill lists six civil rights statutes and states that
'a school or provider of supplementary academic services that receives
scholarship funds under this Act shall, as a condition of participation
under this Act, comply with the statutes.' " 5
CURRENT STAUS OF VOUCHER SYSTEMS
:
Voters have rejected ballot initiatives to create voucher systems
STATE PAROCHIAID REFERENDA
STATE YEAR- AGAINST- FOR
New York 1967 72% 28%
Michigan 1970 57% 43%
Nebraska 1970 57% 43%
Oregon 1972 61% 39%
Idaho 1972 57% 43%
Maryland 1972 55% 45%
Maryland 1974 57% 43%
Washington 1975 61% 39%
Missouri 1976 60% 40%
Alaska 1976 54% 46%
Michigan 1978 74% 26%
D C 1981 89% 11%
California 1982 61% 39%
Massachusetts 1982 62% 38%
South Dakota 1986 46% 54%*
Massachusetts 1986 70% 30%
Utah 1988 70% 30%
Oregon 1990 67% 33%
Colorado 1992 67% 33%
California 1993 70% 30%
California 2000 71% 29%
Michigan 2000 69% 31%
--------------------------------------------------------
* The S Dakota vote was for a bill for funds to purchase books only for
k-12 private religious schools. (Something already found to be
constitutional nationally)
VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN OVERWHELMINGLY
REJECT SCHOOL VOUCHERS
http://www.au.org/press/pr118002.htm
The above only mentions Colorado once but do notice the size of the defeat.
Representatives elected to the state legislatures and Congress are suppose
to represent the citizens of their districts.
These defeats at the ballot box, with regards to vouchers, have not been
squeaker ya know 51% to 49%, or 50.5% to 49,5%
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
[SNIP]
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.
[SNIP]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One would have a rebuttal for Jeffy or anyone else making that claim.
NOW THERE ARE UPDATES TO THE UPDATE SERIES (grin)
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
Vouchers Reloaded [July/August-Church State]
Washington State Scholarship Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite
Church-State Law In America
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
===========================================================
Here is the complete series:
From:
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.atheism,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa.republican,al
t.society.liberalism
Subject: ULTIMATE Series, Vouchers, updated
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:10:34 GMT
PART I
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS
QUOTATIONS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jl0davgv0vsn9ofchpvmdjm9slfi5uv9nr%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART II
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ql0dav8li7dp3v79uom1qjbtjv3gqf7ujf%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART III
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 2000 MID 0NWARD
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1m0dav03rv17ci6l1gnj1q7t52832j0cg7%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART IV
NOW FOR SOME HISTORY:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7m0davcq2eddp9gn6unkvb577plolj9hnn%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART V
You want to study the USSC and its rulings on aid to religion :
Have at it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cm0dav0m5hird75bi8oa98rfqte05evamt%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART VI
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=im0davom7u6os59tk66pogn9p43ofad4h8%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART VII
Mitchell v. Helms
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nm0davkhrq2ng1n5jgh0jrdn2gntdlooth%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART VIII
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tm0davo7fg7adlmee54diejlfjakn19j0t%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART IX
The voucher issue has a very simple solution.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=in0dav850mdh7oob0r0n3evppqeja6d5m1%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
UPDATES TO THE UPDATE SERIES
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
Vouchers Reloaded [July/August-Church State]
Washington State Scholarship Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite
Church-State Law In America
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
26 Jul 2003 02:05:51 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qbm4ivk1f92v9c7drmg08h9ndgn11lnc5l@4ax.com...
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
No they do not and the USSC also dissagrees with you.
ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, et al. v. SIMMONS
Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest thus make clear that where a government aid
program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance
directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to
religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent
private choice, the program is not readily subject to challenge under the
Establishment Clause. A program that shares these features permits
government aid to reach religious institutions only by way of the deliberate
choices of numerous individual recipients. The incidental advancement of a
religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is
reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not to the government,
whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits. As a plurality of this
Court recently observed:
For starters the state gives the money to the parents, not to any school.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZO.html
Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need. Families
with incomes below 200% of the poverty line are given priority and are
eligible to receive 90% of private school tuition up to $2,250.
§§3313.978(A) and (C)(1). For these lowest-income families, participating
private schools may not charge a parental co-payment greater than $250.
§3313.976(A)(8). For all other families, the program pays 75% of tuition
costs, up to $1,875, with no co-payment cap. §§3313.976(A)(8), 3313.978(A).
These families receive tuition aid only if the number of available
scholarships exceeds the number of low-income children who choose to
participate.2 Where tuition aid is spent depends solely upon where parents
who receive tuition aid choose to enroll their child. If parents choose a
private school, checks are made payable to the parents who then endorse the
checks over to the chosen school. §3313.979.
3 times those who would rather keep the poor kids in Bad schools tried to
raise an establishmnet clause claim against vouchers, and all 3 times they
have failed, with the courts upholding vouchers as not violating the
establishment clause.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZO.html
To answer that question, our decisions have drawn a consistent distinction
between government programs that provide aid directly to religious schools,
Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 810-814 (2000) (plurality opinion); id., at
841-844 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Agostini, supra, at 225-227;
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 842 (1995)
(collecting cases), and programs of true private choice, in which government
aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and
independent choices of private individuals, Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388
(1983); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U.S. 481
(1986); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). While
our jurisprudence with respect to the constitutionality of direct aid
programs has "changed significantly" over the past two decades, Agostini,
supra, at 236, our jurisprudence with respect to true private choice
programs has remained consistent and unbroken. Three times we have
confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs
that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn,
direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing.
Three times we have rejected such challenges.
In Mueller, we rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a Minnesota
program authorizing tax deductions for various educational expenses,
including private school tuition costs, even though the great majority of
the program's beneficiaries (96%) were parents of children in religious
schools. We began by focusing on the class of beneficiaries, finding that
because the class included "all parents," including parents with "children
[who] attend nonsectarian private schools or sectarian private schools," 463
U.S., at 397 (emphasis in original), the program was "not readily subject to
challenge under the Establishment Clause," id., at 399 (citing Widmar v.
Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 274 (1981) ("The provision of benefits to so broad a
spectrum of groups is an important index of secular effect")). Then, viewing
the program as a whole, we emphasized the principle of private choice,
noting that public funds were made available to religious schools "only as a
result of numerous, private choices of individual parents of school-age
children." 463 U.S., at 399-400. This, we said, ensured that " 'no
imprimatur of state approval' can be deemed to have been conferred on any
particular religion, or on religion generally." Id., at 399 (quoting Widmar,
supra, at 274)). We thus found it irrelevant to the constitutional inquiry
that the vast majority of beneficiaries were parents of children in
religious schools, saying:
In Witters, we used identical reasoning to reject an Establishment Clause
challenge to a vocational scholarship program that provided tuition aid to a
student studying at a religious institution to become a pastor. Looking at
the program as a whole, we observed that "[a]ny aid . that ultimately flows
to religious institutions does so only as a result of the genuinely
independent and private choices of aid recipients." 474 U.S., at 487. We
further remarked that, as in Mueller, "[the] program is made available
generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic
nature of the institution benefited." 474 U.S., at 487. In light of these
factors, we held that the program was not inconsistent with the
Establishment Clause. Id., at 488-489.
Finally, in Zobrest, we applied Mueller and Witters to reject an
Establishment Clause challenge to a federal program that permitted
sign-language interpreters to assist deaf children enrolled in religious
schools. Reviewing our earlier decisions, we stated that "government
programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens
defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an
Establishment Clause challenge." 509 U.S., at 8. Looking once again to the
challenged program as a whole, we observed that the program "distributes
benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as 'disabled.' " Id., at 10. Its
"primary beneficiaries," we said, were "disabled children, not sectarian
schools." Id., at 12.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
