Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At what point, in your opinion, should parents take up arms and burn down the public schools that steal their tax dollars and impose the filth of leftist religious dogma on their children?IMO, if they pay any private schools, then religious schools, as long as they meet the academic criteria, should not be excluded.
I don’t think taxpayers should fund any private schools unless it is for a special need that public schools cannot meet.
Many schools can't (and shouldn't have to) provide an education for special needs students who might learn better in a different environment or structure.
I don't consider religious or rightists "special needs" to be funded by the rest of us. Pay for your own damn schools.
So why do you oppose universal school choice?
While you're right to point out that stare decisis is not unassailable—after all, Roe v. Wade was just overturned by Dobbs v Jackson—the Court didn't overrule stare decisis in this case. There has never been a precisely identical question addressed by the Court; however, Everson v. The Board of Education (1947) serves as the operative stare decisis.
In Everson, the plaintive argued that a New Jersey statute which reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to private schools, secular and parochial, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In its decidendi the Court held that (1) the statute did not violate the Establishment Clause and that (2) the Establishment Clause applied, not just to the federal government, but also to state and local governments via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the first time the Court applied the Establishment Clause to the governments of the several states.
That part of the ruling was absolutely correct!
The political left, for example, has assailed the right to keep and bear arms at the state level for decades. It’s a good thing when the federal courts require the several states to uphold the Bill of Rights as well, and there was absolutely nothing unconstitutional about New Jersey allocating funds for transporting students to parochial schools, just like it allocated funds to transport students to other private schools and public schools. The plaintive was trying to persuade the Court to exclude students of religious faith from public services provided for all students.
The Court’s expressly stated ratio decidendi on the question of the case was given in two parts.
The Court held that because the Establishment Clause does not override the Free Exercise Clause “New Jersey cannot . . . exclude individual . . . because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.” In this instance, Justice Black, writing for the majority, meant the general government services associated with things like public sewage, parks, highways, education, transportation; fire and police protection, and so on. The First Amendment “requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers.” In other words, the New Jersey statute didn’t provide any special benefits to religious students to which they weren’t entitled as citizens.
That's the problem. You don't seem to fully understand what the issue is, just like you don't grasp what the imperatives of natural and constitutional law require.
You seem to be operating under the statist delusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment empowers the government to collectively impose, via the oligarchies of school boards, whatever ideology it damn well pleases in the state schools against the religious/ideological worldview of the people, as if the Bill of Rights do not protect the individual inherent rights of the people.
You seem to live in the fantasy world in which the Establishment Clause does not prohibit that very thing and in which the Free Exercise Clause does not exist for those who passionately reject the imposition of secular humanism in the state schools, for example.
You don't seem to live in the real world, but a fantasy world where institutions exist in ideological vacuums.
You seem to spout mindless slogans about nonexistent constitutional and case-law principles as the government steals our tax dollars and imposes leftist religious dogma in the state schools. Then you suggest that if I don't like it I can always pay TWICE FOR EDUCATON. Your notion of separation between church and state does not exist in this country. Your silly doctrine of separation is that of the former Soviet Union.
How about this? Lefty can shove his shit up his ass. He's free to pay to shove his shit down his children's throats at home or send his children to the shit-show school of his choice.
In short, I keep my money. I pay once for education. I send my children to the school of my choice.
Keep being obtuse. In the meantime, we're going to win the fight for universal school choice funding, wherein the money follows the students to the school their parents choose, secular or parochial.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and this decision are just the beginning.
You're ranting, dumbass.I'm discussing the issue presented here by this courts ruling. You are mindlessly ranting.
You're ranting, dumbass.
I invited folks to discuss Carson v. Makin and share their views on universal school choice vis-a-vis Carson v. Makin in the OP, dumbass.
You're also making statements that seem to imply that universal school choice funding is prohibited by constitutional law, dumbass.
But wait! I was trying to edit my post when you responded. I deleted that post. I reposted the edited version here: #112. See if you can respond to this without being rude out of nowhere this time and address it in accordance with the full parameters outlined in the OP, Einstein. Or is that beyond your slogan-spouting thought processes?Odd, I supported the ruling but don't let that stop you.
That's the problem. You don't seem to fully understand what the issue is, just like you don't grasp what the imperatives of natural and constitutional law require.I'm not sure where I ever did and I don't believe that is even an issue as you can send your kid anywhere you want.
But wait! I was trying to edit my post when you responded. I deleted that post. I reposted the edited version here: . See if you can respond to this without being rude
I know you support it. I saw that post. I also saw the post in which you seemed to be suggesting that constitutional law prohibits universal school choice funding, which is precisely what I invited folks to talk about as well and precisely what the author of the article of the OP is ultimately getting at.Odd, I supported the ruling but don't let that stop you.
You call me names and call me rude? Yeah, nevermind.
Lying-ass punk. See posts #109, #111, 112, and #114 again. You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. Go gaslight somebody else, asshole.Obviously the school systems have failed us with you. I say I supported the decision and you accuse me of being against choice. Reading comprehension must not have been taught wherever it was you were taught.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Obviously the school systems have failed us with you. I say I supported the decision and you accuse me of being against choice. Reading comprehension must not have been taught wherever it was you were taught.
I know you support it. I saw that post. I also saw the post in which you seemed to be suggesting that constitutional law prohibits universal school choice funding,
If stare decisis were carved in stone blacks would still be as pieces of furniture.Sorry, I don't follow you.
No you didn't.
You pay your taxes, if you want to send your kid to a private school that school can get funding. I fail to see your problem.
Damn it, man! Yes, I did. You were talking to Coyote in post #40.
You wrote this:
To note, I read the hyperbole in response to your question and I want to first state I am in no way aligned with those view points.