Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional

Religions > Atheism > Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	31 Oct 2003 12:12:18 PM
Object:	Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional

"rex" <rexy@ij.net> wrote:

:| A federal court has been asked to dismiss drug charges on the grounds
:|that defendants cannot receive fair trials in drug cases because jurors were
:|educated in government schools and cannot be impartial. The motion argues
:|that government schools are unconstitutional, and that the First Amendment
:|should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as religious
:|establishments. The motion is available at http://rexcurry.net.
:| The motion in federal court argues that defendants do not receive fair
:|trials because government schools propagandize jurors to do as the
:|government says. More specifically, government schools tell jurors to
:|support vice laws against peaceful adults, and keep jurors ignorant of jury
:|nullification and the ways in which jurors can reject bad laws that violate
:|individual rights.
:| When the U.S. Constitution was written, most people received private
:|educations, and government schools, if they existed at all, were rare and
:|did not predominate as they do today.
:| If the authors of the Constitution had foreseen the government's modern
:|education monstrosity then the authors would have explicitly banned
:|government schools just as they banned government churches in the First
:|Amendment.

Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
#1
From:

Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.atheism
Subject: edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:44:26 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nocfbtcbrfo9aaecg0pdf6r4ie3a4df6ul%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=socfbtk6h334p28lm2aii0jt24tt3chta0%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3vcfbtsljmeek2qcm383kke4j8vj7se94j%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=frhhbt42tqjjdo4sv20ei6urjij5lpis2s%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7mhhbtc0l7hck7g66g745cnbsl368r96qr%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hhhbt0fujrmop7mh730ilddh8131dd1s6%404ax.com&output=gplain
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9shhbto5pf9pcpbi6bu5v1243605nqiiab%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2qhhbt4iguic35ar3oklais4aqb0c5q1hu%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=felhbt85trl40j1ih8u3pr8lgb0n3o926c%404ax.com&output=gplain
*****************************************
R. FREEMAN BUTTS
#1
Subject: religion/education/taxes/early America
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:06:45 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kgafbtk11st0c1k23iho575mg5sa94c3l9%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ngafbtougmt58uuai57qpt0guiv93k1gn5%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qgafbt8dduj6sq5dt7bmk5cm6i4dm8aqup%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sgafbtc3v817rohpdhj4kmai7k2n3joq9b%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vgafbts092n46vq3f2cc6vbq8f78tgbe70%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1hafbt0cuhno58j7u9vpcuape484a13bgi%404ax.com&output=gplain
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4hafbto1mpqjkrep27kmqrqk3ics9v8rm6%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hafbt0tts24bp5n32j8avujet2rdjf50o%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hafbt4rsugsud0vr9tcnh12au336mvl49%404ax.com&output=gplain
#10
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bhafbtc0pbvpseo1f9rlfc0buau5gn5qvv%404ax.com&output=gplain
#11
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lhafbt8ia91amju98poe52a609lnaj4che%404ax.com&output=g
*****************************************
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
Study Guide for Vouchers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd4.htm
*****************************************
Just a few of those favoring common schools or public education:
Thomas Jefferson
79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw1.htm
80. A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and
Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for Its Support (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw2.htm
81. A Bill for Establishing a Public Library (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw3.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
Geo Washington
James Madison
1786
BENJAMIN RUSH: On the Need for General Education
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
1787
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
1788
Benjamin Rush: PLAN OF A FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
1790
Noah Webster: THE EDUCATION OF THE YOUTH OF AMERICA
1796
The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel Harrison Smith.
George Washington: A National University. December 7, 1796
1801
Fisher Ames: School Books
.

User: "Chris the Liberal"
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	01 Nov 2003 03:29:38 PM

wrote in message news:<if95qv4s0q92ej2mll4d5d4d3df53gqaes@4ax.com>...

"rex" <rexy@ij.net> wrote:

WHAT a bunch of BS.
"Do what the government says"???>?
These are the same folks who declare people UN-patriotic if they do
not get down on their knees the better to kiss the asses of GWB and
Asscroft.
.

User: "Info Junkie"
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	31 Oct 2003 04:22:52 PM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:12:18 -0500,

wrote:

"rex" <rexy@ij.net> wrote:

"snip" much of same ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has "skewed" in the
past., and refused to answer questions about, preferring instead to "bury" the
opposition again and again with long posts that may be equated to spam.
Yet one may also provide that which debunks his "evidence", not by "skewing" the
"spirit and intent" of the issue under discussion, but from the facts
themselves, despite his attempt to "bury" his opposition with that which may be
equated to spam.
Any reference to religion in his posts are not part of this discussion, nor has
anyone in these threads (as this is posted), stated nor implied as much (except
by jailson alias "buckeye"). All of his references to religion may be dispensed
with as irrelevent.
"Favoring" education, and usage of the Northwest Ordinance (voided when the
Constitution was passed) are not a legal basis that provided the federal
government the authority to use federal taxpayer monies for public school in any
or all states. (Article the Third of the Northwest Ordinance REQUIRES religion
be "encouraged". Something the US Constitution FORBIDS under Article I of the
BOR)
There may be a justification for providing federal taxpayer monies for public
education within Territories and the District of Columbia (US Constitution,
Article IV, Section 3, clause 2), but nowhere is any enumerated power found in
said document for providing the same foor all states, nor offered by any
resolutions from the state conventions when ratifiying said document.

Thomas Jefferson

79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw1.htm
80. A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and
Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for Its Support (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw2.htm

81. A Bill for Establishing a Public Library (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw3.htm

Jefferson's proposals ONLY referred to the legislature of his home state of
Virginia, and does not refer nor imply public education be funded by federal
taypayer monies for all states.. Your "evidence" is debunked.

Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm

Since the federal government has "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (of Columiba)", this is not "favoring" public education to be
funded by usage of federal taypayer monies for any or all states.
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) Your "evidence" is debunked.

Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm

Non sequitur as I never stated nor implied.such a quote.

Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm

Non sequitur. He referred to his home state of Virginia, and does not refer nor
imply public education be funded by federal taypayer monies for all states.
Your "evidence" is debunked.

1786
BENJAMIN RUSH: On the Need for General Education
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools

More "sleight of hand" by jailson alsias "buckeye":
the FULL title of Benjamin's book is:
"A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools and the Diffusion of Knowledge
IN PENNSYLVANNIA" (emphasis mine) He also notes he wants to teach each
citizen; "'that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property.'.
Your "evidence" is debunked.

1787
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools

See above. Your "evidence" is debunked.

1788
Benjamin Rush: PLAN OF A FEDERAL UNIVERSITY

What did he say? "...let one of the first acts of the new Congress be to
establish WITHIN THE DISTRICT ALLOTTED TO THEM to be allotted for them a
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY. (emphasis mine)
(http://www.geneseo.edu/~harrison/humn1%20html/rush2.html)
Since the federal government has "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (of Columiba)", this is not "favoring" public education to be
funded by usage of federal taypayer monies for any or all states.
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) Your "evidence" is debunked.

1790
Noah Webster: THE EDUCATION OF THE YOUTH OF AMERICA

(1788 not 1790):
He does not state that public education be funded by federal taypayer monies by
for all states. Your "evidence" is debunked.
(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s26.html)

1796
The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel Harrison Smith.
George Washington: A National University. December 7, 1796

No cite for such a book

1801
Fisher Ames: School Books

"WHEREAS, on the issue of education, Fisher Ames and other Founders clearly
demonstrated in their writings that they never intended that the First Amendment
should be used as a weapon of secularists to suppress and remove the Bible and
the Ten Commandments from school classrooms:
'Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals
are pure, its examples are captivating and noble .... The reverence for the
sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long, and probably, if not
impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.... In no Book is there
so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will
speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well
as of faith...'
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1789 Congressman Ames further amplified his concern
that the education of the nation�s youth not be separated from America�s
Biblical foundation in an article published in Palladium magazine:
'We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of
children containing fables and moral lessons .... We are spending less time in
the classroom on the Bible which should be the principle text in our schools
.... The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other manmade
book...'" (http://www.firstprinciplespress.org/pages/greene.htm)
He does not state that public education be funded by federal taypayer monies for
all states. Your "evidence" is debunked.
Facts:
"Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since
it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is
the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning
contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it..." Vol 16 American
Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91
Interpreting the US Constitution: Federal tax monies for public education:
(purpose or intent)
James Madison
"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the
debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative
character . . . [T]he legitimate meanings of the Instrument must be derived from
the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be . . . in the
sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions, where
it received all the authority which it possesses." Letter to Thomas Ritchie,
September 15, 1821 (Madison, 1865, III, page 228)
"Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which
formed the Constitution an undue ascendancy in expounding it. Apart from the
difficulty of verifying that intention, it is clear, that if the meaning of the
Constitution is to be sought out of itself, it is not in the proceedings of the
body that proposed it, but in those of the State Conventions, which gave it all
the validity and authority which it possesses." Letter to N.P. Trist, December,
1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 211)
(http://www.jmu.edu/madison/quote.htm#Interpreting)
Thomas Jefferson
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the
Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented
against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas
Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
"I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present
federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the
States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its
enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies." --Thomas Jefferson to
Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:76
"Among the purposes to which the Constitution permits [Congress] to apply money,
the granting premiums or bounties is not enumerated, and there has never been a
single instance of their doing it, although there has been a multiplicity of
applications. The Constitution has left these encouragements to the separate
States." --Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Maese, 1809. ME 12:231
"I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary
[for certain objects of public improvement], because the objects now recommended
are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the
public moneys to be applied." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME
3:424
"[The States] alone being parties to the [Federal] compact... [are] solely
authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it,
Congress being not a party but merely the creation of the compact and subject as
to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom and for whose
use itself and its powers were all created and modified." --Thomas Jefferson:
Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:387
(http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm)
Since nine States ratified the US Constitution, these nine would equate to the
meaning of "several States", however, are included, the ratifications notices or
documentation from each of the original thirteen States.
1. Delaware: (December 7, 1787)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates.
(http://www.nara.gov/education/teaching/constitution/transcri.html)
2. Pennsylvania: (December 12, 1787)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_pa.txt)
(Harrisburg Proceedings: Sept. 3, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of
education, nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations
suggested to be introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding
to public education by the delegates.
(http://www.constitution.org/bor/amdpacon.txt)
3. New Jersey: (December 18, 1787)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates.
(http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnj.htm)
4. Georgia: (January 2, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratga.htm)
5. Connecticut: (January 8, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ct.txt)
6. Massachusetts: (Feruary 6, 1788)
Mr. Adams (wrt education):
" And if this Constitution shall be adopted, I hope the Continental legislature
will ...making it one of their first acts, in their first session, most
earnestly to recommend to the several states in the Union the institution of
such means of education as shall be adequate to the divine, patriotic purpose of
training up the children and youth at large in that solid learning, and in those
pious and moral principles..."
Other than Mr. Adams *hope*, no other mention was made that referred to public
education, the funding of education, nor were any alterations, provisions nor
recommendations suggested to be introduced into the said Constitution regarding
or alluding to public education by the delegates.
(http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ma.txt)
7. Maryland (April 28, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_md.txt
8. South Carolina (May 23, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_sc.txt)
9. New Hampshire: (January 21, 1788)
No mention was found that referred to public education, the funding of
education, nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to
be introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public
education by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nh.txt)
10. Virginia: (June 26, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates.
(http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_01.txt -
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_23.txt)
11. New York: (July 26, 1788)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.txt)
12. North Carolina : (November 21, 1789)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nc.txt)
13. Rhode Island May 29, 1790)
No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
by the delegates. (http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratri.htm)
Only ONE person, in one State, referred to his *hope* wrt public education.
Within the debates/resolutions of each State's Convention documents, NOT even
ONE person, in any of the "several States", refer to the Land Ordinance of 1785,
nor the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 as any justification to the authority of
powers delegated to the federal government.
The State Convention documents defined the "intent" of those powers delegated to
the Federal government. Several founding fathers/framers noted that the people,
represented at their respective States' Convention, were the authority through
which the Constitution, i.e., Federal government, derived it's power.
Federal tax monies to fund public education of all States was NOT an enumerated
power that was delegated to the Federal government, as it was neither stated nor
implied through any debate, nor provided for through any State provision nor
recommendation to the Continential Congress regarding the ratification of the US
Constitution.
Your "evidence", once again, is debunked.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	01 Nov 2003 01:09:54 PM

(Info Junkie) wrote:

:|"snip" much of same ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has "skewed" in the
:|past., and refused to answer questions about, preferring instead to "bury" the
:|opposition again and again with long posts that may be equated to spam.
:|
:|Yet one may also provide that which debunks his "evidence", not by "skewing" the
:|"spirit and intent" of the issue under discussion, but from the facts
:|themselves, despite his attempt to "bury" his opposition with that which may be
:|equated to spam.
:|
:|Any reference to religion in his posts are not part of this discussion, nor has
:|anyone in these threads (as this is posted), stated nor implied as much (except
:|by jailson alias "buckeye"). All of his references to religion may be dispensed
:|with as irrelevent.
:|
:|"Favoring" education, and usage of the Northwest Ordinance (voided when the
:|Constitution was passed)

BZZZZTTTTTT--- False try again next week. Credibility hit #1
In this act, the First Congress adopted as its own the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, . . .
Northwest Territory Bill [HR-14] July 21, 1789
http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p10/p10_2.html
*****************************************
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and
Debates, 1774-1875
TUESDAY JULY 21. PREVIOUS SECTION ..
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793
TUESDAY JULY 21.
An engrossed bill to provide for the government of the territory Northwest
of the river Ohio was read the third time.
Resolved, That the said bill do pass, and that the title be, "An act to
provide for the government of the territory Northwest of the river Ohio."
Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said bill to the Senate,
and desire their concurrence.
On motion,
Resolved, That Mr. Partridge and Mr. White be a committee, jointly, with
any committee which the Senate shall appoint, to examine the enrolled bill,
entitled "An act for establishing an Executive Department, to be
denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs," after it shall be signed by
the Speaker of this House, and the President of the Senate, to present the
same to the President of the United States for Iris approbation.
Page 64 | Page image (you actually want the previous page, page 63)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:4:./temp/~ammem_ND2g::#0010063
******************************************
The Northwest Ordinance (1787-89
The Northwest Ordinance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm
The History of the First Sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1a.htm
The Northwest Ordinance does not violate the First Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b.htm
The Northwest Ordinance did not require schools to teach religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b1.htm
R. Freeman Butts on Minor v. Ohio
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwobutt.htm
The Northwest Ordinance did not provide non-preferential aid to the public
school
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b2.htm
The first sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance was a preamble
with few enforceable legal consequences
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b3.htm
A note on "civilizing" the "American Indian"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwoind.htm
The Northwest Ordinance cannot be read as a commentary on the First
Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm
The Northwest Ordinance had no constitutional authority
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1d.htm
The framers of the Northwest Ordinance had no desire to aid religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1e.htm
The Northwest Ordinance: Course of Debate
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1785.htm
****************************************
On July 13, 1787, while the Federal Convention was drafting the
Constitution in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress in New York' enacted
an ordinance to govern territory that the states had ceded to the national
government. This document, most often referred to today as the Northwest
Ordinance set the pattern for territorial governance and state making that
was ultimately applied to thirty-one of the fifty states.(8)
(8). See James A. Curry et al., Constitutional Government: The American
Experience 81 (1989); see also Carter, supra note 4,. at 22 (noting that
the pattern applied to the Northwest Territory also applied largely to the
Southwest Territory and to the territories of Mississippi. Orleans.
Louisiani-Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida); Eblen. supra note 5,
at 241 ("[I)ts provisions were to lay the foundation for the government of
the thirty-one public Lands states and Hawaii."). For the Southwest
Ordinance and other legislative progeny of the Northwest Ordinance, see
Frederick E. Hosen. Unfolding Westward in Treaty and Law: Land Documents in
United States History from the Appalachians to the Pacific, 1785-1934, a 45
(Southwest Ordinance) 59-80 (Mississippi Territorial Act), 84-.89 (Missouri
Territorial Act), 188-97 (Oregon Territorial Act), 197-203 (Minnesota
Territorial Act) (1988).
SOURCE:The Northwest Ordinance as a Constitutional Document, Denis P.
Duffey. Columbia Law Review, Vol 95, May 1995, No.4, p 929-30)
************************************
In this act, the First Congress adopted as its own the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, . . .
Northwest Territory Bill [HR-14] July 21, 1789
http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p10/p10_2.html
*************************************
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
#1
From:

:|are not a legal basis that provided the federal
:|government the authority to use federal taxpayer monies for public school in any
:|or all states. (Article the Third of the Northwest Ordinance REQUIRES religion
:|be "encouraged".
:|Something the US Constitution FORBIDS under Article I of the
:|BOR)

Nice try but doesn't really float.
See the URLs above.

:|
:|There may be a justification for providing federal taxpayer monies for public
:|education within Territories and the District of Columbia (US Constitution,
:|Article IV, Section 3, clause 2), but nowhere is any enumerated power found in
:|said document for providing the same foor all states, nor offered by any
:|resolutions from the state conventions when ratifiying said document.
:|
:|>Thomas Jefferson
:|>
:|>79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw1.htm
:|
:|>80. A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and
:|>Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for Its Support (1779)
:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw2.htm
:|>
:|>81. A Bill for Establishing a Public Library (1779)
:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw3.htm
:|
:|Jefferson's proposals ONLY referred to the legislature of his home state of
:|Virginia, and does not refer nor imply public education be funded by federal
:|taypayer monies for all states.. Your "evidence" is debunked.

:|
:|>Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
:|>service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public schools,
:|>which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
:|
:|Since the federal government has "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
:|over such District (of Columiba)", this is not "favoring" public education to be
:|funded by usage of federal taypayer monies for any or all states.
:|(Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) Your "evidence" is debunked.

If you feel you have to tell people my evidence is debunked apparently you
are afraid others won't understand that. Thus I suspect it is more in your
head than in anything you are typing here. LOL
LOL, gee, nice of you to give your opinion of what is and isn't "debunked"
you don't exactly qualify as a objective referee. But nice attempt at
trying to lead readers where you want them to go.

:|
:|>Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm
:|
:|Non sequitur as I never stated nor implied.such a quote.

Irrelevant, even more so since I wasn't replying to anything you had posted
unless you were using a different name.
FYI, since it seemed to pass over your head, I had listed some men of the
founding era who favored common schools or public schools. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Nice try to mislead though, but not very effective.

If you feel you have to tell people my evidence is debunked apparently you
are afraid others won't understand that. Thus I suspect it is more in your
head than in anything you are typing here. LOL
Are you really trying to claim he would not have supported public education
for other states?
His home state Virginia, yes sure was. Since he wrote most of those items
in the 1770s.
However, don't fool yourself that he would not have found his system
effective for other states, etc.

If you feel you have to tell people my evidence is debunked apparently you
are afraid others won't understand that. Thus I suspect it is more in your
head than in anything you are typing here. LOL
The list was some of those who favored common or public education.
Your "debunking" isn't changing that one iota. You are working awfully hard
to muddy the water though.
However, since you have to resort to game playing to try and confuse, here:
LOL, wow, well hell if we have to be technical so be it
Here:
MAY 25, 1786
BENJAMIN RUSH: On the Need for General Education
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Dr. Benjamin Rush to Richard Price, a British
moral philosopher, on May 25, 1786. In his letter be advanced a theory of
education that involved giving greater freedom to students and encouraging
their training in science and utilitarian subjects rather than in
traditional disciplines. Source: Proceedings of the Massachusetts
Historical Society, 2nd series, XVII, pp. 342-344. The Annals of America,
Volume 3, 1784 - 1796, Organizing the New Nation, William Benton,
Publisher. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. pp. (1968) 55-56)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1786
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Benjamin Rush, like Thomas Jefferson, felt that
education in a republic was intended to produce well-informed, useful
citizens. The educational program Rush presented in 1786 called for a
uniform, comprehensive system of schools for the state of Pennsylvania His
plan favored instruction for all members of society and improved education
for girls. Source: Essays. Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 2nd edition,
Philadelphia, 1806, pp. 1-6.
The Annals of America, Volume 3, 1784 - 1796, Organizing the New Nation,
William Benton, Publisher. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. pp. (1968) 57-59)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, do you want me to post the articles too?
The fact that many of these men wrote plans or idea regarding their own
states doesn't change the fact they supported common schools or public
education.

:|
:|>1787

JULY 28, 1787
BENJAMIN RUSH: Thoughts on Female Education
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Benjamin Rush: Thoughts on Female Education. July
28, 1787 His Thoughts upon Female Education, published in 1787, was first
an address by Rush to the Visitors of the Young Ladies' Academy in
Philadelphia, on July 28 of the same year. Source: Essays, Literary, Moral
and Philosophical, Philadelphia, 1806, pp. 75-92.
The Annals of America, Volume 3, 1784 - 1796, Organizing the New Nation,
William Benton, Publisher. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. pp. (1968)
207-212)
OCTOBER 29, 1788
PLAN OF A FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Plan of a Federal University, Benjamin Rush,
October 29, 1788.
During the 1700s, several schools for higher education were formed under
the auspices of local religious groups, colonial governments, and private
donors. However, a number of men, including members of the Philadelphia
convention and several of the first Presidents, envisioned a national
university that would bring together young persons from all parts of the
country in the common pursuit of learning. On October 29, 1788, Benjamin
Rush published an essay that advocated a federal university in which
education would be "adapted to the new and peculiar situation of our
country." Excerpts from this article, which first appeared in the Federal
Gazette, signed "Citizen of Pennsylvania," are reprinted here. Source:
American Museum, October 1788. The Annals of America, Volume III,
1784-1796. William Benton, Publisher, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, (1968)
pp.312-314)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:|>BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
:|>BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
:|
:|See above. Your "evidence" is debunked.

If you feel you have to tell people my evidence is debunked apparently you
are afraid others won't understand that. Thus I suspect it is more in your
head than in anything you are typing here. LOL
Only in your dreams my claim remains. These men and others favored public
education, So far we have not reached the point in time that we had a
national/federal government.

:|
:|>1788
:|>Benjamin Rush: PLAN OF A FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
:|
:|What did he say? "...let one of the first acts of the new Congress be to
:|establish WITHIN THE DISTRICT ALLOTTED TO THEM to be allotted for them a
:|FEDERAL UNIVERSITY. (emphasis mine)
:|(http://www.geneseo.edu/~harrison/humn1%20html/rush2.html)
:|
:|Since the federal government has "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
:|over such District (of Columiba)", this is not "favoring" public education to be
:|funded by usage of federal taypayer monies for any or all states.
:|(Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) Your "evidence" is debunked.

If you feel you have to tell people my evidence is debunked apparently you
are afraid others won't understand that. Thus I suspect it is more in your
head than in anything you are typing here. LOL

:|
:|>1790
:|>Noah Webster: THE EDUCATION OF THE YOUTH OF AMERICA
:|
:|(1788 not 1790):
:|He does not state that public education be funded by federal taypayer monies by
:|for all states. Your "evidence" is debunked.
:|(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s26.html)

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Education of the Youth of America, Noah
Webster, 1790.
Having spent some time teaching, Noah Webster was concerned with such
questions as tl proper curriculum of the schools and the role of the Bible
in education, particularly in American schools. "On the Education of Youth
in America" was first published in Webster's American Magazine between 1787
and 1788. In 1790, it was revised and reissued in A Collection of Essays
and Fugitiv Writings, from which the following selection is taken. Source:
A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings, Boston, 1790, pp. 1-37. The
Annals of America, Volume 3, 1784-1796. William Benton, Publisher,
Encycopaedia Britannica, Inc, (1968) pp. 424-432)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:|
:|>1796
:|>The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel Harrison Smith.
:|> George Washington: A National University. December 7, 1796
:|
:|No cite for such a book

Too bad
SUMMER 1796
The Objects Proper to Liberal Education
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel
Harrison Smith. Written in the summer of 1796. Excerpts from Smith's essay.
Source: Remarks on Education: Illustrating the Close Connection Between
Virtue and Wisdom. To Which Is Annexed a System of Liberal Education,
Philadelphia, 1798, pp. 40-70. The Annals of America, Volume 3, 1784 -
1796, Organizing the New Nation, William Benton, Publisher. Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc. pp. (1968) 597-603)
DECEMBER 7, 1796
A National University
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington: A National University. December
7, 1796, George Washington spoke to Congress of a project he had long
cherished: a national university in the future capital. A portion of the
President's message to Congress. Source: The Writings of George Washington,
Edited by Worthington C. Ford, Xlll, pp. 344-351 The Annals of America,
Volume 3, 1784 - 1796, Organizing the New Nation, William Benton,
Publisher. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. pp. (1968) 604-605)

:|
:|>1801
:|>Fisher Ames: School Books
:|
:|"WHEREAS, on the issue of education, Fisher Ames and other Founders clearly
:|demonstrated in their writings that they never intended that the First Amendment
:| should be used as a weapon of secularists to suppress and remove the Bible and
:|the Ten Commandments from school classrooms:

LOL, nice try
(1) Are you claiming Fisher Ames didn't support public education?

:|
:|'Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals
:|are pure, its examples are captivating and noble ....

I find the above interesting because it is acknowledging that secular
education is already flourishing. That the Bible for instance no longer
holds the position it once did in schools. BTW as I recall public education
dates to the 1600s in Mass.

:|Facts:
:|"Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since
:|it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is
:|the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning
:|contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it..." Vol 16 American
:|Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91
:|
:|Interpreting the US Constitution: Federal tax monies for public education:
:| (purpose or intent)
:|
:| James Madison
:|"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the
:|debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative
:|character . . . [T]he legitimate meanings of the Instrument must be derived from
:|the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be . . . in the
:|sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions, where
:|it received all the authority which it possesses." Letter to Thomas Ritchie,
:|September 15, 1821 (Madison, 1865, III, page 228)
:|
:|"Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which
:|formed the Constitution an undue ascendancy in expounding it. Apart from the
:|difficulty of verifying that intention, it is clear, that if the meaning of the
:|Constitution is to be sought out of itself, it is not in the proceedings of the
:|body that proposed it, but in those of the State Conventions, which gave it all
:|the validity and authority which it possesses." Letter to N.P. Trist, December,
:|1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 211)
:|(http://www.jmu.edu/madison/quote.htm#Interpreting)
:|
:| Thomas Jefferson
:|"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the
:|Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and
:|instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented
:|against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas
:|Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
:|
:|"I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present
:|federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the
:|States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its
:|enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies." --Thomas Jefferson to
:|Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:76
:|
:|"Among the purposes to which the Constitution permits [Congress] to apply money,
:|the granting premiums or bounties is not enumerated, and there has never been a
:|single instance of their doing it, although there has been a multiplicity of
:|applications. The Constitution has left these encouragements to the separate
:|States." --Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Maese, 1809. ME 12:231
:|
:|"I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary
:|[for certain objects of public improvement], because the objects now recommended
:|are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the
:|public moneys to be applied." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME
:|3:424
:|
:|"[The States] alone being parties to the [Federal] compact... [are] solely
:|authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it,
:|Congress being not a party but merely the creation of the compact and subject as
:|to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom and for whose
:|use itself and its powers were all created and modified." --Thomas Jefferson:
:|Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:387
:|(http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm)
:|
:|Since nine States ratified the US Constitution, these nine would equate to the
:|meaning of "several States", however, are included, the ratifications notices or
:|documentation from each of the original thirteen States.
:|
:|1. Delaware: (December 7, 1787)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates.
:|(http://www.nara.gov/education/teaching/constitution/transcri.html)
:|
:|2. Pennsylvania: (December 12, 1787)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_pa.txt)

PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION-1776
SECT. 44. A school or schools shall be established in each county by the
legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth, with such salaries to
the masters paid by the public, as may enable them to instruct youth at low
prices: And all useful learning shall he duly encouraged and promoted in
one or more universities.

:|
:| (Harrisburg Proceedings: Sept. 3, 1788)
:| No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of
:|education, nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations
:|suggested to be introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding
:|to public education by the delegates.
:|(http://www.constitution.org/bor/amdpacon.txt)
:|
:|3. New Jersey: (December 18, 1787)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates.
:|(http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratnj.htm)
:|
:|4. Georgia: (January 2, 1788)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratga.htm)
:|
:|5. Connecticut: (January 8, 1788)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ct.txt)
:|
:|6. Massachusetts: (Feruary 6, 1788)
:|Mr. Adams (wrt education):
:|" And if this Constitution shall be adopted, I hope the Continental legislature
:|will ...making it one of their first acts, in their first session, most
:|earnestly to recommend to the several states in the Union the institution of
:|such means of education as shall be adequate to the divine, patriotic purpose of
:|training up the children and youth at large in that solid learning, and in those
:|pious and moral principles..."
:|
:|Other than Mr. Adams *hope*, no other mention was made that referred to public
:|education, the funding of education, nor were any alterations, provisions nor
:|recommendations suggested to be introduced into the said Constitution regarding
:|or alluding to public education by the delegates.
:|(http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ma.txt)
:|

CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS-------1780
CHAPTER V.
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body
of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and
liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and
advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the
different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and
magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the
interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them;
especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar-schools
in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions,
rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences,
commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to
countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general
benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty
and punctuality in their dealings, sincerity, and good humor, and all
social affections and generous sentiments, among people.

:|7. Maryland (April 28, 1788)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_md.txt
:|
:|8. South Carolina (May 23, 1788)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_sc.txt)
:|
:|9. New Hampshire: (January 21, 1788)
:|No mention was found that referred to public education, the funding of
:|education, nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to
:|be introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public
:|education by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nh.txt)
:|
:|10. Virginia: (June 26, 1788)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates.
:|(http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_01.txt -
:|http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_23.txt)
:|
:|11. New York: (July 26, 1788)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.txt)
:|
:|12. North Carolina : (November 21, 1789)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_nc.txt)
:|
:|13. Rhode Island May 29, 1790)
:|No mention was made that referred to public education, the funding of education,
:|nor were any alterations, provisions nor recommendations suggested to be
:|introduced into the said Constitution regarding or alluding to public education
:|by the delegates. (http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratri.htm)
:|
:|
:|Only ONE person, in one State, referred to his *hope* wrt public education.
:|Within the debates/resolutions of each State's Convention documents, NOT even
:|ONE person, in any of the "several States", refer to the Land Ordinance of 1785,
:|nor the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 as any justification to the authority of
:|powers delegated to the federal government.
:|
:|The State Convention documents defined the "intent" of those powers delegated to
:|the Federal government. Several founding fathers/framers noted that the people,
:|represented at their respective States' Convention, were the authority through
:|which the Constitution, i.e., Federal government, derived it's power.
:|
:|Federal tax monies to fund public education of all States was NOT an enumerated
:|power that was delegated to the Federal government, as it was neither stated nor
:|implied through any debate, nor provided for through any State provision nor
:|recommendation to the Continential Congress regarding the ratification of the US
:|Constitution.
:|
:|Your "evidence", once again, is debunked.

If you feel you have to tell people my evidence is debunked apparently you
are afraid others won't understand that. Thus I suspect it is more in your
head than in anything you are typing here. LOL
SOME THOUGHTS:
(1) There could be no "original intent" known since the Constitutional
Convention met in secret and the most accurate and most complete notes of
the debates of that convention weren't published until into the 1840s
(2) Thomas Jefferson, the man who purchased Louisiana without the
Constitutional power to do so, that Thomas Jefferson?
(3) Can we say Alien and Sedation Acts
Where is there authority to be found in the Constitution for that?
(4) And do you mean these founders:
NEGOTIATING THE CONSTITUTION, The Earliest Debates over Original Intent. By
Joseph M. Lynch
Everyone--Madison, Hamilton, James Wilson, Elbridge Gerry, and many
others--engaged in opportunistic argument, invoking 'original intent' when
convenient, denouncing it (or simply changing the subject) when not. Almost
no one felt any strong duty to be consistent is making constitutional
argument."
Reviewed By Sanford Levinson
Negotiating the Constitution can be read as a sequel to Jack Rakove's
0riginal Meanings, which closely analyzed the debates at the Philadelphia
Convention and the ensuing state ratification debates in order to ascertain
the likely "original understandings" of some basic constitutional ideas.
Rakove's final chapter discussed the attention paid these understandings as
the new government got underway and actually had to confront the tasks of
governance. What was the subject of the necessarily sketchy chapter by
Rakove is fully developed in Lynch's fascinating book, as he details
constitutional argument in the Congress (and elsewhere) between 1789 and
1800.
Defining "Necessary and Proper"
A central focus of Lynch is the "Necessary and Proper" Clause that
concludes the listing of congressional powers in Article 1, Section 8 of
the Constitution. Did this enhance congressional power, as feared by many
opponents of the Constitution who wrote that this "sweeping clause" would
in fact allow Congress to legislate in areas reaching well beyond the
subject matters assigned to it in earlier clauses of Section 8? Or did it,
at most, simply authorize Congress to pass legislation "incidental" to the
assigned powers, as suggested, quite likely for strategic reasons, by many
proponents of the Constitution, including Madison and Hamilton in The
Federalist, who were worried about gaining the votes necessary for
ratification?
As Washington's secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton reversed direction,
brilliantly defending a broad reading of the clause that gave Congress the
power to charter the Bank of the United States; his erstwhile colleague
Madison, now a member of the House of Representatives, responded that
Congress lacked such a power. Congress agreed with Hamilton, and Washington
signed legislation establishing the Bank. John Marshall, an avid
Hamiltonian, would in 1819 give the clause an expansive reading in
McCulloch v. Maryland, upholding the Second Bank of the United States.)
The first American party system was significantly defined by such
issues of constitutional interpretation and, concomitantly, the extent of
national power. The Necessary and Proper Clause was only one constitutional
issue dividing the parties, and Lynch well tells the story of many debates
that shaped the nation (and with whose consequences in some cases we still
live). One central theme of his book is captured in the concluding
paragraph:
"Madison, diligent advocate of strict construction, has been called Father
of the Constitution. After constitutions are written, however, they must be
interpreted and made to work. It is Hamilton who deserves the title of
Father of Constitutional Law."
Opportunistic readings, and "strict constructions"
As noted earlier, Lynch is interested whether any of the founding
generation felt duties to remain faithful to the presumptive "original
intent" of those who framed the 1787 Constitution. His answer is,
basically, no. Everyone-Madison, Hamilton, James Wilson, Elbridge Gerry,
and many others--engaged in opportunistic argument, invoking "original
intent" when convenient, denouncing it (or simply changing the subject)
when not. Almost no one felt any strong duty to be consistent in making
constitutional argument. Lynch refers to the "extremities of constitutional
argumentation and political positioning that both sides would embrace in
pursuit of ambition, partisan triumph, and national and sectional interest"
Although this book concludes with the election of 1800 and the triumph of
the Jeffersonian view of ostensibly "strict construction" of national
powers, Lynch notes that Jefferson spectacularly violated all of his
strictures in welcoming the Louisiana Purchase. The felt imperatives of
American expansionism took easy precedence over any doubts about the
constitutional legitimacy of the purchase.
Lynch concludes his acknowledgments by thanking his wife, Irene, for her
insistence that he lay out the complex materials that are the subject of
his book in "understandable American usage." All of us are in Irene Lynch's
debt, for Negotiating the Constitution is indeed an extraordinarily
accessible book. Every scholar even remotely interested in American
constitutional development must read this book; every general reader
sharing similar interests will be able to enjoy and profit from it.
ABOUT THE Author: JOSEPH M. LYNCH is Professor of Law Emeritus at Seton
Hall University School of Law.
HISTORY BOOK CLUB MAY 1999
-------------------------------------------------
FROM THE FLYLEAF:
No concept sparks more controversy in Constitutional debate than "Original
Intent." Offering a Legal Historians's approach to the subject, this book
demonstrates that the framers deliberately obscured one of their most
important decisions.
Joseph Mr. Lynch argues that the Constitution was a product of political
struggles involving regional interests, economic concerns, and ideology.
The framers, he maintains settled on enigmatic wording of the Necessary and
Proper Clause and of the General Welfare provision in the Spending Clause
leaving the extent of federal power to be determined by the political
process. During ratification, however, attempts by dissident framers to
undo the compromise were repelled in were repelled in The Federalist:
charges of overly broad congressional powers were met with protestations
that in fact these powers were limited. This exchange set the stage for
later battles between Federalists and Republicans.
Examining debates in the first six Congresses, Lynch describes how early
lawmakers applied the Constitution to such issues as executive power and
privilege, the creation of the national bank, the deportation of aliens,
and the prohibition of seditious speech. He follows the disputes over
interpretation of this document--focusing on James Madison's changing
views--and the new government took shape and political parties were formed.
Lynch points out that the first six Congresses and President George
Washington disregarded the framers intentions when they were deemed
impractical to follow.
=========================================================
(5) �15:41 MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Neither the Supreme Court nor legal scholars should be very dogmatic in
asserting the intent of the Framers on any aspect of constitutional law.
For one reason, the ratifying conventions are reported in such meagerness
as to throw very little light on the intentions of these persons who were
primarily responsible for the adoption of the provisions. A long study into
the intention of the persons responsible for the First Amendment should
encourage caution and humility in asserting what they meant in anything
other than the broadest perspectives.(13) Again, after monumental research
into the intent of those responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment, as
requested by the Supreme Court, the court could but observe: "Although
these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with
which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive . . . ."(14) So, indeed,
will be most attempts to psychoanalyze "the Framers." The Constitution will
always operate on many matters on which the Founding Fathers could have had
no intent.
(13) Antieau, Downey and Roberts, Freedom from Federal Establishment
(Chicago, 1965).
(14) Brown v Board of Education United States (1925) 276 US 394, (1954) 347
US 483, 98 L Ed 873, 878, 74 S Ct 686, 38 AIR2d 1180, SUPP op 349 US 294,
99 L Ed 1083, 75 S Ct 753. MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, The States and the
Federal Government, Volume II, by Chester J. Antieau, Lawyers Cooperative
Publishing, Rochester, New York (1969) pp 716
AND
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RELIGION
An Overview
Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning
religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of
religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' The language was altered
in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion,
or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of
conscience.'' In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' It was in the conference
committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language
was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting '' phraseology.
Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion
clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced
him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the
others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who
voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(6) I recommend
Thomas Jefferson and the Education of a Citizen. Edited by James Gilreath
Library of Congress. Washington (1999)
(7) Education and the Federal Government, A Historical Record.
(8) (The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman
Butts,Greenwood Press, Publishers, Westport, Conn. (1974--Originally
published by The Beacon Press. Boston, 1950)
(9) Public Education in America From Revolution to Reform R. Freeman
Butts.
(10) American Education, The colonial Experience, Laurence Cremin
(11) American Presidents and Education, Maurice Berube
(12) The great Education Debate, Washington and the Schools, Marcus
Stickney
We've danced this dance before and there is no need to do it again.
BTW. you haven't debunked any of the data I have provided except maybe in
your dreams.
Google seraches using the following:
jalison@cox.net,

(Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
buckeye-elo@nospam.net,

(Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	14 Sep 2004 05:24:32 AM

For

(Info Junkie)
Time to educate you now
RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS
Jefferson, more than any other individual, led in enunciating and
implementing the separation principle.
[Actually Madison played a much bigger role than Jefferson but I will
excuse the common myth expressed in the above here]
In 1776, while he was in Philadelphia writing the Declaration of
Independence, he drafted a proposed constitution for Virginia that stated:
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor
shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."2
Although this particular measure was not passed, it nevertheless set the
tone for religious freedom for Virginia in the era to come. In spite of
Jefferson's position, however, in 1779, a bill was introduced in the
Virginia legislature declaring that "the Christian Religion shall in all
times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of the
Commonwealth."2$ It required every person to enroll his name with the
county clerk and designate the society that he intended to support,
whereupon the clerk would present the roll for the appropriate religious
group to determine assessment rates; these were then collected by the
sheriff and the proceeds were turned over to the church. Taxes obtained
from persons failing to enroll in a religious society had their payments
spread across all religious groups.29
In 1784, the bill was called up for a vote; entitled a "Bill Establishing a
Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," it was sponsored by
Patrick Henry. Although the bill was defeated, from the preceding and
ensuing debate, two of the most important documents in religious freedom
were written, Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom and
Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.
Jefferson's bill was written and introduced in the Virginia General
Assembly in 1779, but was not enacted into law until January, 1786.
Madison's Memorial, in opposition to Henry's bill for religious
assessments, was of great historical significance. The philosophy stated
therein has often been referred to by the United States Supreme Court in
support of its opinions. The Memorial presents several arguments against
the religious assessment bill, but more importantly it conveys a philosophy
of separation that, along with Jefferson's, provided the logic and
rationale for the "wall of separation" provisions of the First Amendment in
1791.
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) pp. 117-18
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	14 Sep 2004 09:18:47 AM

For

(Info Junkie)
Here this is posted to you elsewhere but in case you miss it I will repeat
it here:
INDIRECT FEDERAL ROLE
The early method of federal land grants for education was most notable for
two particular aspects. First, the grants were made for the purpose of
creating and aiding public schools directly, thus espousing a federal
interest in mass general common school education for everyone; and, second,
the federal government exercised no control over education as a condition
for receiving the grants.4 From these beginnings, it was established that
the federal government was to play an indirect role in the development of
public education, to serve a stimulus function without direct control of
educational policy and operation.
Over the years, the federal government's role has remained one of indirect
support of education; never directly controlling education, but generally
in a positive and affirmative manner, the Congress has, from time to time,
fashioned educational policy to address certain perceived national
interests. The first Morrill Act passed by Congress in 1862, like the early
land grants, shaped American education policy by providing a grant of land
to each state to be sold with the proceeds to be used for the "endowment,
maintenance and support of at least one college where the leading object
shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and
including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are
related to agriculture and mechanic arts in such manner as the legislatures
of the states may respectively prescribe. 5
In relying on this act, the great land-grant colleges were established and
supported. Herein, Congress advanced a role of higher education that
transcended the traditional, narrow, European model by expanding and giving
credibility to the study of agriculture and engineering, disciplines that a
new and developing nation so badly needed. Subsequent legislation, the
second Morrill Act of 1890 and the Hatch Act of 1887, the Adams Act of
1906, and other provisions, expanded the activities of the land-grant
colleges and introduced grants-in-aid as another type of federal support.
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) pp. 56-57
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	14 Sep 2004 05:23:12 AM

For |bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
Tine to educate you now:
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND RELIGION
Public education is founded on three fundamental assumptions that relate
either directly or indirectly to the issue of church and state.
First, education is a benefit to the entire society and the legislature has
the power to tax all for support. Essential to this concept is that general
taxation is used for support and that taxation is not levied merely on
those who use the public schools-the childless and those who sent their
children to private schools must all pay their fair share. Thaddeus Stevens
in 1835, in dramatically defeating a legislative proposal to repeal general
taxation for education, enunciated the principle of universal
responsibility for universal education in Pennsylvania. It was claimed that
it was unjust to tax people to educate children of others; Stevens
responded thusly:
"It is for their own benefit, inasmuch as it perpetrates the government and
ensures the due administration of the laws under which they live, and by
which their lives and property are protected. Why do they not urge the same
objection against all other taxes? The industrious, thrifty, rich farmer
pays a heavy county tax to support criminal courts, build jails, and pay
sheriffs and jail keepers, and yet probably he never has had and probably
never will have any direct personal use for them. . . . He cheerfully pays
burdensome taxes which are necessarily levied to support and punish
convicts, but loudly complains of that which goes to prevent his
fellowbeing from becoming a criminal and to obviate the necessity of those
humiliating institutions."
To Stevens, education was a public obligation that must be nurtured to
develop the entire civic intelligence to better govern through an elective
republic. Those who do not directly benefit from public education certainly
gain indirectly through association with an enlightened citizenry.
Second, education provided by the state must be secular and individual
religious beliefs should not be inhibited. An important element of the
secular state envisioned by Jefferson was a system of public schools that
could convey all necessary temporal knowledge and yet not impede religious
freedom. The power of the state could not be used to inculcate religious
beliefs, nor could the authority of the state to tax be used to assist
religious training.
The First Amendment has two religious clauses that protect the individual's
religious liberty, "the establishment" clause and the "free exercise"
clause. These two combined prevent the use of public schools to proselytize
and, correspondingly, forbid the expenditure of public tax funds to support
religion. An extract from an opinion by the Supreme Court of Iowa
forcefully illuminates this:
"If there is any one thing which is well settled in the policies and
purposes of the American people as a whole, it is the fixed and unalterable
determination that there shall be an absolute and unequivocal separation of
church and state, and that our public school system, supported by the
taxation of the property of all alike-Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Gentile,
believer and infidel-shall not be used directly or indirectly for religious
instruction, and above all that it shall not be made an instrumentality of
proselyting influence, in favor of any religious organization, sect, creed,
or belief."
The third assumption, that the state can compel all parents to provide
their children with a minimum secular education, is essential to the
concept of general mass education. Every government has as a goal its own
continuation and preservation, and in a republic an educated electorate is
fundamental. As such, the state must be conceived as parens patriae in
enforcing minimum educational and welfare requirements. The validity of the
state's interest was established several years ago in Prince v.
Massachusetts.
The primary issue emanates from placing the force and power of the state,
whether it be through taxation or other public policy decision, in a
position to either enhance or inhibit religion. This was one of the most
obstinate problems that Horace Mann was forced to overcome in his great
crusade to found free common schools in Massachusetts. Mann vigorously
maintained that the only purpose of religious education in the schools was
to convey to each child the idea and respect of religious liberty.
According to him, the child should be able to judge for himself according
to the dictates of his own reason and conscience, what his religious
obligations are and whither they lead. But if a man is taxed to support a
school where religious doctrines are inculcated which he believes to be
false, and which he believes that God condemns, then he is excluded from
the school by the divine law, at the same time that he is compelled to
support it by the human law. This is a double wrong. 38
Today the public schools of America are secular and not merely
nonsectarian; this is necessary if separation of church and state is to be
complete. The important position of education in the governmental process
is the key to maintaining religious liberty. Pfeffer observes that to be
secular does not mean to be "Godless"; it is merely a guarantee that the
state will not dictate or encroach on religious beliefs of the individual.
He says:
"A secular state requires a secular state school; but the secularization of
the state does not mean the secularization of society. Only by accepting a
totalitarian philosophy, either in religion or politics or both, can the
state be equated with society. We are a religious people even though our
government is secular. Our democratic state must be secular, for it does
not purport or seek to pre-empt all of societal life. Similarly the public
school need not and should not be the totality of the education process."
In this regard, our Constitution precludes religious indoctrination in the
public schools and prohibits use of public funds in supporting religion in
parochial schools and it also proscribes the state from preempting all the
child's time, thereby allowing substantial opportunity for religious
training outside the school by parents and churches.4o
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) pp. 121-22
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	14 Sep 2004 09:19:26 AM

For

(Info Junkie)
THE LAND ORDINANCES
Even before the adoption of the Constitution, the Continental Congress
enacted the Land Ordinances of 1785 and 1787, which provided impetus for
creation of educational systems in all the states joining the Union.
Initially, the original colonies had claimed almost unlimited territory
extending west beyond the Alleghenies. For purposes of mutual accord, the
matter was settled in the Continental Congress in 1780 when the existing
states ceded their claims to the federal government, creating a national
domain. This "common estate" created a common interest and bond among the
first states of the new nation, and it was from this National Domain that
new states were to be carved for westward expansion.
Although the primary motivation of Congress was to raise revenues for the
debt-ridden nation that had just emerged from the War of Independence with
England, the provision for education in the ordinances caused the new
states to address the issue of education at the very beginning of their
statehood. The Land Ordinance of 1785 included a provision reserving the
sixteenth section of every township "for the maintenance of public schools
within the said township." The purpose of this provision was to make the
purchase of land more attractive to men with families who might venture
west. Regardless of the profit motive, however, the effect was a very
positive force in the expansion of education. The survey plan of 1785 laid
out square townships, six miles by six miles, containing a total of
thirty-six sections. The sixteenth section, one mile by one mile (640
acres) was dedicated for schools.
Within tdho years after the enactment of the Ordinance Survey of 1785 in
mid-July of 1787, the Continental Congress met and enacted the Ordinance of
1787, known as the Northwest Ordinance. This ordinance is included in
Article 111, the now-famous provision, which stated that
[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge being nec-
essary to good government and the happiness
of mankind, schools and the means of educa-
tion shall be forever encouraged.
The Northwest Ordinance set out the requirements necessary for territorial
areas to become states. Provisions for education, habeas corpus, due
process, and religious freedom were all to be provided for in the compact,
which was required by the central government as a condition for a territory
to become a state.
The legislatures of the new states were thus required, in accordance with
the Ordinance of 1785, to oversee the sixteenth-section lands, or to
account for the funds if sold; and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 required
that each state have an education provision in its basic law.
Later, when Ohio became a state in 1802, the problem arose as to whether
states could tax federal property within their boundaries. A compromise
was reached that provided that states would receive "5-percent" of the sale
of public lands, if in turn federal property would be exempt from state
taxation. These "5- percent" funds, along with income from salt lands and
swamp lands, added to the revenues available for the public schools. Later,
as a result of Jackson s decentralization efforts, the Surplus Revenue
Deposit Act of 1836 distributed $28 million in federal funds back to state
governments, much of the which was devoted to school purposes.
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) pp. 55-56
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	14 Sep 2004 05:21:50 AM

For >:|bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
Time to educate you now:
The law of the school includes all those areas of jurisprudence that bear
on the operation of public elementary and secondary schools in the United
States. School law as a field of study is a generic term covering a wide
range of legal subject matter including the basic fields of contracts,
property, torts, constitutional law, and other areas of law that directly
affect the educational and administrative processes of the educational
system. Because of the breadth of the subject matter involved it is
necessary for the school law student to be versed in certain fundamental
concepts of the American legal system and to be able to apply this
knowledge to situations that daily affect school operation.
Because a public school is a governmental agency, its conduct is
circumscribed by precedents of public administrative law supplemented by
those legal and historical traditions surrounding an educational
organization that is state established, yet locally administered. In this
setting legal and educational structural issues must be considered that
define the powers to operate, control, and manage the schools. In analyzing
the American educational system and comparing it to central state systems
of education in foreign countries, one is struck by the diversity of
authority under which the American public schools are governed. As a
federal and not a national system, the government of the United States
comprises a union of states united under one central government. The
particular form of American federalism creates a unique educational system,
which is governed by laws of fifty states with component parts amounting
to several thousand local school district operating units. Through all of
this organizational multiformity, and indeed complexity, runs the legal
basis on which the entire system is founded.
The fundamental principles of legal control are those generally prescribed
by our constitutional system, from which the basic organic law of the land
emanates: the written constitutions of the fifty states and the federal
government. Constitutions at both levels of government are basic because
the positive power to create public education systems is assumed by state
constitutions, and provisions of both the state and federal constitutions
serve as restraints to protect the people from unwarranted denial of basic
constitutional rights and freedoms.
The power of operation of the public educational system, therefore,
originates with a constitutional delegation to the legislature to provide
for a system of education. With legislative enactments providing the basis
for public school law, it then becomes the role of the courts, through
litigation, to interpret the will of the legislature. The combination of
constitutions, statutes, and court or case law forms the primary legal
foundation on which the public schools are based.
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) p. 1
*******************************************************
.

User: "Info Junkie"
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	25 Sep 2004 10:19:56 AM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:21:50 -0400,

wrote:

For >:|bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie)

Time to educate you now:

(Yawn)
You didn't even have the courtesy to put your source's writings in quotes.

The law of the school includes all those areas of jurisprudence that bear
on the operation of public elementary and secondary schools in the United
States. School law as a field of study is a generic term covering a wide
range of legal subject matter including the basic fields of contracts,
property, torts, constitutional law, and other areas of law that directly
affect the educational and administrative processes of the educational
system. Because of the breadth of the subject matter involved it is
necessary for the school law student to be versed in certain fundamental
concepts of the American legal system and to be able to apply this
knowledge to situations that daily affect school operation.

(Without referring to religious education):
Stilling waiting of the Constitutional principle from the founding fathers and
states delegates (previously provided you) that stated or implied that a role
for the federal government was to be authorized to use taxpayer monies to
provide funding for public school system in all states. The above does little
to clarify, rather it muddies this issue by obfuscation and complex cause
fallacies.

Because a public school is a governmental agency, its conduct is
circumscribed by precedents of public administrative law supplemented by
those legal and historical traditions surrounding an educational
organization that is state established, yet locally administered. In this
setting legal and educational structural issues must be considered that
define the powers to operate, control, and manage the schools. In analyzing
the American educational system and comparing it to central state systems
of education in foreign countries, one is struck by the diversity of
authority under which the American public schools are governed. As a
federal and not a national system, the government of the United States
comprises a union of states united under one central government. The
particular form of American federalism creates a unique educational system,
which is governed by laws of fifty states with component parts amounting
to several thousand local school district operating units. Through all of
this organizational multiformity, and indeed complexity, runs the legal
basis on which the entire system is founded.

Not one instance has been shown wrt the intent, either stated or implied by the
FFs or the state delegates that ratified said US Constitution.
The above paragraph attempts to create the impression that public education in
America equates to the status of public education in foreign countries. Based on
his other writings and work elsewhere, one may infer "foreign countries"
primarily refers to European countries. Yet it fails to address that point
prior to 1900, where the concept of using federal taxpayer monies for a (as he
admits is not a national but a) federal system such as public education, did not
exist nor had been allowed as part of our constitutional construct.
Also noted is the flawed premise of, "As a federal and not a national system,
the government of the United States comprises a union of states united under one
central government." Not wholly true, as each state, under a federal system
is a sovereign unto itself, and when "united under a central government", the
FF/framers/state delegates did with the intent for the federal government to
interact as a single entity (a single "voice" for all states) to negotiate with
foreign countries and that which may effect more than one state's borders.

The fundamental principles of legal control are those generally prescribed
by our constitutional system, from which the basic organic law of the land
emanates: the written constitutions of the fifty states and the federal
government. Constitutions at both levels of government are basic because
the positive power to create public education systems is assumed by state
constitutions, and provisions of both the state and federal constitutions
serve as restraints to protect the people from unwarranted denial of basic
constitutional rights and freedoms.

Education has never been considered constitutionally, an individual "right";
i.e., flawed premise = flawed conclusion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=411&invol=1

The power of operation of the public educational system, therefore,
originates with a constitutional delegation to the legislature to provide
for a system of education. With legislative enactments providing the basis
for public school law, it then becomes the role of the courts, through
litigation, to interpret the will of the legislature. The combination of
constitutions, statutes, and court or case law forms the primary legal
foundation on which the public schools are based.
SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) p. 1
*******************************************************

Claiming a constitutional power without the constitutional authority does not
make it "legal", rather it violates one of the basic principles of the
Constitution.
Courts are to "interpret the will of the legislature"? That may have been the
opinion of Sir William Blackstone on his 'Commentaries on the Laws of England',
but not applicable to the judiciary under the US Constitution. IIRC, the
court's role was to intrepret whether legislation passed met the principles of
the constitution.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for
any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional
law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would
be had the statute not been enacted." (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
Volume 16, Section 177)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: vice laws & government schools are unconstitutional	30 Sep 2004 10:01:55 AM

(Info Junkie) wrote:

:| . . . Yet it fails to address that point
:|prior to 1900, where the concept of using federal taxpayer monies for a (as he
:|admits is not a national but a) federal system such as public education, did not
:|exist nor had been allowed as part of our constitutional construct.
:|
:|Also noted is the flawed premise of, "As a federal and not a national system,
:|the government of the United States comprises a union of states united under one
:|central government." Not wholly true, as each state, under a federal system
:|is a sovereign unto itself, and when "united under a central government", the
:|FF/framers/state delegates did with the intent for the federal government to
:|interact as a single entity (a single "voice" for all states) to negotiate with
:|foreign countries and that which may effect more than one state's borders.
:|
:|>The fundamental principles of legal control are those generally prescribed
:|>by our constitutional system, from which the basic organic law of the land
:|>emanates: the written constitutions of the fifty states and the federal
:|>government. Constitutions at both levels of government are basic because
:|>the positive power to create public education systems is assumed by state
:|>constitutions, and provisions of both the state and federal constitutions
:|>serve as restraints to protect the people from unwarranted denial of basic
:|>constitutional rights and freedoms.
:|
:|Education has never been considered constitutionally, an individual "right";
:|i.e., flawed premise = flawed conclusion.
:|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=411&invol=1
:|
:|>The power of operation of the public educational system, therefore,
:|>originates with a constitutional delegation to the legislature to provide
:|>for a system of education. With legislative enactments providing the basis
:|>for public school law, it then becomes the role of the courts, through
:|>litigation, to interpret the will of the legislature. The combination of
:|>constitutions, statutes, and court or case law forms the primary legal
:|>foundation on which the public schools are based.
:|>SOURCE: American Public School Law, Third Edition, Kern Alexander. M.
:|>David Alexander. West Publishing Company, (1992) p. 1
:|>*******************************************************
:|
:|Claiming a constitutional power without the constitutional authority does not
:|make it "legal", rather it violates one of the basic principles of the
:|Constitution.
:|
:|Courts are to "interpret the will of the legislature"? That may have been the
:|opinion of Sir William Blackstone on his 'Commentaries on the Laws of England',
:|but not applicable to the judiciary under the US Constitution. IIRC, the
:|court's role was to intrepret whether legislation passed met the principles of
:|the constitution.
:|
:|"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
:|and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for
:|any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
:|not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional
:|law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
:|Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would
:|be had the statute not been enacted." (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
:|Volume 16, Section 177)

The problem you are going to have here is going to be a major problem for
you.
(1) the book you are trying to devalue has 5 editions to it. The newest
edition is the 6th but in many ways it is a rewrite.
Point being the book has been proven to be a valuable contribution,
otherwise it would never have gone though the 5 previous editions and be in
its 6th now.
That puts your opinions and attempts to devalue it at a serious
disadvantage.
(2) The third edition, the one I currently own (6th is on order and will be
here in a few days plus I have access to a 6th edition as well) has 880
pages counting the index. Has 12 pages of a in depth table of contents,
21 pages of double rows of listed cases that are discussed or cited in the
book
Point being it is a very in depth book
(3) Then we have the credentials and reputations of the two authors
Professor Kern Alexander
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eol/frp/alexandr
Professor M. David Alexander
http://www.epi.elps.vt.edu/Info/mda.html
******************************************
You strike out in all areas.
(4) One additional little factor, neither this book nor those professors
is all that I offer. I offer a wide range of sources, authors , scholars,
historical documents, etc all saying basically the same thing.
.