" Scrotum Wrote Traitorous Sedition Against Nonsectarian Integration In Exchange For Deleterious Future Of Sectarian Segregation Funded By Government "
* Evangelical SCROTUS At Its Most Pathetic *
The roberts conjectures are that businesses affiliated with a particular denomination of religious sect can not be denied access to contracts made available through public services , yet failed pathetically to apply us 1st amendment by affirming Maine governance policy that privates schools operate within secular , nonsectarian constraints , though private schools be owned or managed by organizations affiliated with a particular denomination of religious sect ; thus , the dumbfounded conclusions of that court are seditious and retarded .
Students represent a captive audience and 1st amendment of us constitution applies to tax funding for such organizations proselytizing .
The governance policies of maine to mandate secular education did not prohibit religious organizations from owning or managing the private schools , however it did prohibit religious organizations from proselytizing through tax payer funding ; thus , such dumbfounded seditious stupidity of the court should be addressed .
When religion is included in the curriculum as instruction , especially to captive audiences , rather that as general commercial transactions for products or services , such creates an exclusion from receipt of taxes , by the tax rule for religions ; again , tax free religious contributions for religious education is prejudicial to non sectarian private schools .
* Jist Of Contempt For Traitors Against Us Constitution *
If states are not prohibited from complying with us 1st amendment , then why are states not complying with us 1st amendment ?
* Summary Titles Subtitles Categories *
You is second person accusative , very often self incriminating , especially through reflection .
* Crux Of Nonsense Opinion *
II A The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment pro-Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 7Opinion of the Courttects against “indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.” Lyng v.Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U. S. 439,450 (1988). In particular, we have repeatedly held that aState violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits. See Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 404 (1963) (“Itis too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religionand expression may be infringed by the denial of or placingof conditions upon a benefit or privilege.”); see also Eversonv. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 16 (1947) (a State“cannot exclude” individuals “because of their faith, or lackof it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation”). A State may not withhold unemployment benefits,for instance, on the ground that an individual lost his jobfor refusing to abandon the dictates of his faith. See Sherbert, 374 U. S., at 399–402 (Seventh-day Adventist who refused to work on the Sabbath); Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind.Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 709, 720 (1981)(Jehovah’s Witness who refused to participate in the production of armaments).We have recently applied these principles in the contextof two state efforts to withhold otherwise available publicbenefits from religious organizations.
To be “approved” to receive these payments, a private school must meet certain basic requirements under Maine’s compulsory education law. §2951(1). The school must either be “[c]urrently accredited by a New England association of schools and colleges” or separately “approv[ed] for attendance purposes” by the Department. §§2901(2), 2902.
The program imposes no geographic limitation: Parents may direct tuition payments to schools inside or outside the State, or even in foreign countries. §§2951(3), 5808. In schools that qualify for the program because they are accredited, teachers need not be certified by the State,§13003(3), and Maine’s curricular requirements do not apply, §2901(2). Single-sex schools are eligible. See Me. Rev.Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, §4553(2–A) (exempting single-sex private, but not public, schools from Maine’s antidiscrimination law).
In 1981, however, Maine imposed a new requirement that any school receiving tuition assistance payments must be “a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Me. Rev.Stat. Ann., Tit. 20–A, §2951(2). That provision was enacted in response to an opinion by the Maine attorney general taking the position that public funding of private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. We subsequently held, however, that a benefit program under which private citizens “direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice” does not offend the Establishment Clause. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536U. S. 639, 652 (2002). Following our decision in Zelman,the Maine Legislature considered a proposed bill to repeal the “nonsectarian” requirement, but rejected it. App. 100,108.
The “nonsectarian” requirement for participation in Maine’s tuition assistance program remains in effect today.
The Department has stated that, in administering this requirement, it “considers a sectarian school to be one that is associated with a particular faith or belief system and which, in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”979 F. 3d 21, 38 (CA1 2020). “The Department’s focus is on what the school teaches through its curriculum and related activities, and how the material is presented.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). “[A]ffiliation or association with a church or religious institution is one potential indicator of a sectarian school,” but “it is not dispositive.” Ibid.
Two Terms ago, in Espinoza, we reached the same conclusion as to a Montana program that provided tax creditsto donors who sponsored scholarships for private school tuition. The Montana Supreme Court held that the program,to the extent it included religious schools, violated a provision of the Montana Constitution that barred governmentaid to any school controlled in whole or in part by a church,sect, or denomination. As a result of that holding, the Stateterminated the scholarship program, preventing the petitioners from accessing scholarship funds they otherwisewould have used to fund their children’s educations at religious schools.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 20–1088DAVID CARSON, AS PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF O. C.,ET AL., PETITIONERS v. A. PENDER MAKINON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT[June 21, 2022]CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS,ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., fileda dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN J., joined, and in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part I–B. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
constitution.congress.gov
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
