VOUCHERS

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy.

Doan

On 13 Aug 2004, Kane wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:49:56 -0700, Doan wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> >> >> No. SOMEONE (possibly them or their parents) made *a* choice
> for
> >> >> >> them. It obviously was NOT the "best choice" since it was a
> fraud.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Are you saying that have no choices but to go to that school?
> >> >>
> >> >> They may not know of any other choices.
> >> >>
> >> >Then they have made the "best choice" under the circumstances!
> >>
> >> I don't think so.
> >>
> >> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
> >> choosing.
> >>
> >How much more? I said best choice "under the circumstances".
> >
> >> >> >> >What do you think
> >> >> >> >they should have done under these circumstances? Would you
> let
> >> >> >> >the government make these choices for them?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have no problem with it. It would have been better than
> being
> >> >> >> defrauded.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >So you want the government to make the choices for you???
> >> >>
> >> >> The government has generally done better for my kids (with my
> >> >> advocacy), than I would have done on my own. There are choices
> that I
> >> >> would have made that I now realize would have been wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >You are avoiding the question. Do you or do you not want the
> government to
> >> >made the choices for you?
> >>
> >> I don't have a pat answer to that question, so I won't give one.
> >> Sometimes I prefer not to make choices, and sometimes I prefer to
> make
> >> them. It depends on the choice and my personal involvement in that
> >> choice. I have relatively little problem with having to be totally
> >> responsible for the financing of my choice when it is me rather
> than
> >> the government that makes the choice.
> >>
> >But we are a government "of the people, for the people". I rather
> it's
> >the people that made the choices!
>
> You have no idea how political choices are made in this country,
> though the process is out there exposed to you on almost a daily
> basis. And you misquoted, as is usual when you try for informative
> fact and data.
>
> It's "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
>
> I realize it is probably above your grade level in comprehension, but
> you might visit here and learn.
>
> http://www.manteno.k12.il.us/drussert/WebQuests/KenWynn/AmericanGovernmentWebQuest.htm
>
> >> >> On the other hand, I did rather worse by trusting a couple of
> private
> >> >> sector physicians over my own judgment on certain health
> matters,
> >> >> though in the long term this probably will turn out a wash.
> >> >>
> >> >I like to make my own choices!
> >>
> >> And have us pay for them when you can't afford them.
> >>
> >We live in a democracy! It's not us bet we!
>
> Figured it out yet, Bob?
>
> Droany doesn't debate. He nitpicks and hairsplits you to death, and
> often with bogus assumptions, and pure ignorance leavened with phony
> intellect.
>
> Like the idea that we live in a "democracy!"
>
> Apparently he's never taken a PoliSci course, or he'd know better.
>
> We live in a republic, a modified representative democracy...where we
> do NOT make choices, we elect others to make choices for us, and
> badger the hell out of them if we know what's good for us.
>
> If this were a true democracy we would be holding town hall meetings
> every Tues and Thursday of every week of the year and we still
> wouldn't be getting anything done.
>
> If we were a true democracy we'd still be slaveholders, women would
> still not be enfrancised, and children would be beaten and we'd call
> it spank.......oh, wait. WE DO still do that. Well, no one's
> perfect...R R R R R R
>
> Pure democracy is three wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on
> what's for dinner.
>
> Droany wouldn't survive more than a day under a pure democracy. He's
> such an offense to civilization he'd be charged, tried, and executed,
> or deported before sundown.
>
> Droany is a dunce in many areas. Just google up his archives and take
> a look at the arguments he presents and declares himself a winner.
>
> If he decides to choose you as a target to badger any attempt on your
> part to be objective, logical, or ethical in debate will be seen as a
> bare exposed throat by him.
>
> He's a predator in these ngs and has been for years.
>
> If you breed a troll to a pitbull you get a Droananator.
>
> He favors his mother.
>
> R R R R R R
>
> Don't waste your time with him. There isn't a complete working pair of
> brain cells to rub together in a carload of his nonsense.
>
> 'Course if you are having fun exposing a fool, know that it's been
> done to death. Half a dozen or so folks in the aps ng has been doing
> it for years.
>
> >Doan
>
> Kane
>

Archived from group: alt>parenting>spanking

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> I don't think so.
> >>
> >> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
> >> choosing.
> >>
> >How much more?
>
> As much as needed to be able to make an ADEQUATE choice.
>
And how do you know they haven't. Even the CIA don't have all
the information!

> >I said best choice "under the
circumstances".
>
> And the choice to seek more information is a choice they omitted.
>
You don't know that!

> No one held a gun to their head and said "choose one of the options
> you know about with no further research".
>
But if the government making the decision for them, they don't even
have an options!

> >> >> >So you want the government to make the choices for you???
> >> >>
> >> >> The government has generally done better for my kids (with my
> >> >> advocacy), than I would have done on my own. There are choices that I
> >> >> would have made that I now realize would have been wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >You are avoiding the question. Do you or do you not want the government to
> >> >made the choices for you?
> >>
> >> I don't have a pat answer to that question, so I won't give one.
> >> Sometimes I prefer not to make choices, and sometimes I prefer to make
> >> them. It depends on the choice and my personal involvement in that
> >> choice. I have relatively little problem with having to be totally
> >> responsible for the financing of my choice when it is me rather than
> >> the government that makes the choice.
> >>
> >But we are a government "of the people, for the people". I rather it's
> >the people that made the choices!
>
> That's the "by the people" part. The "for the people" is the part
> where the people have made the choice, and then the government decides
> "for" them on the ramifications. And the "of the people" is the
> implementation of those decisions.
>
That's how a democracy should work!

> >> >> On the other hand, I did rather worse by trusting a couple of private
> >> >> sector physicians over my own judgment on certain health matters,
> >> >> though in the long term this probably will turn out a wash.
> >> >>
> >> >I like to make my own choices!
> >>
> >> And have us pay for them when you can't afford them.
> >>
> >We live in a democracy!
>
> Constitutional republic.
>
A democracy nonetheless!

> >It's not us bet we!
>
> That makes no sense even correcting the misspelling. "us" = "we" in a
> different grammatical case. "We" are not obliged to pay for "your"
> choices.
>
We are paying for Bush's choices! We are paying for people choices to
have children through tax credits and public school! You are the one
that not making senses!

Doan

Bob LeChevalier · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 350

Doan wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
>> choosing.
>>
>How much more?

As much as needed to be able to make an ADEQUATE choice.

>I said best choice "under the circumstances".

And the choice to seek more information is a choice they omitted.

No one held a gun to their head and said "choose one of the options
you know about with no further research".

>> >> >So you want the government to make the choices for you???
>> >>
>> >> The government has generally done better for my kids (with my
>> >> advocacy), than I would have done on my own. There are choices that I
>> >> would have made that I now realize would have been wrong.
>> >>
>> >You are avoiding the question. Do you or do you not want the government to
>> >made the choices for you?
>>
>> I don't have a pat answer to that question, so I won't give one.
>> Sometimes I prefer not to make choices, and sometimes I prefer to make
>> them. It depends on the choice and my personal involvement in that
>> choice. I have relatively little problem with having to be totally
>> responsible for the financing of my choice when it is me rather than
>> the government that makes the choice.
>>
>But we are a government "of the people, for the people". I rather it's
>the people that made the choices!

That's the "by the people" part. The "for the people" is the part
where the people have made the choice, and then the government decides
"for" them on the ramifications. And the "of the people" is the
implementation of those decisions.

>> >> On the other hand, I did rather worse by trusting a couple of private
>> >> sector physicians over my own judgment on certain health matters,
>> >> though in the long term this probably will turn out a wash.
>> >>
>> >I like to make my own choices!
>>
>> And have us pay for them when you can't afford them.
>>
>We live in a democracy!

Constitutional republic.

>It's not us bet we!

That makes no sense even correcting the misspelling. "us" = "we" in a
different grammatical case. "We" are not obliged to pay for "your"
choices.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote:

> Neutral

>

wrote in message
> Neutral

@4ax.com...
> Neutral

> "Nathan A. Barclay" wrote:
> Neutral

>

> Only an idiot would take your unsubstantiated opinion over any qualified
> Neutral

> trained professional in the field. What was posted was a page out of a
> Neutral

> book. A book with 336 pages. Among those 336 pages is basically one
> Neutral

> and maybe a half pages talking about vouchers.
> Neutral

>:|Exactly. A page and a half covering one topic out of 336 pages covering a
>:|wide range of subject matter regarding the Supreme Court. Under those
>:|circumstances, and considering how quickly Ms. Epstein seems to write, it is
>:|almost inconceivable that she spent anywhere near the time and attention on
>:|the issue that she would if she were preparing a legal brief. So what would
>:|she say if I asked her about the issue I raised here?
> Neutral

>:|Fortunately, Ms. Epstein's e-mail address was not hard to find, and she was
>:|kind enough to give me a very rapid response to my query (which, by the way,
> Neutral

I worded a lot more tactfully than I did my post here). According to her,
>:|the central part of the ruling is in Rehnquist's conclusion, which I quoted
>:|and you promptly ignored: "In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with
>:|respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of
>:|individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular
>:|school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice
>:|among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is
>:|therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line
>:|of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the
>:|program does not offend the Establishment Clause."
> Neutral

>:|Regarding the issue of magnet schools and after-school tutoring programs,
>:|Ms. Epstein wrote, "Based on this court ruling I clearly got the impression
>:|that there must be a strong public option. I don't know whether a program
>:|without a public option of magnet schools and after-school tutoring would be
>:|acceptable to the court." Which is completely in keeping with my argument
>:|that the ruling does not specify that those exact options must be included.
> Neutral

(And not surprisingly, Ms. Epstein expects there to be additional litigation
>:|on the voucher issue with both sides trying to get the balance shifted more
>:|in their direction.)

CONTINUING THE THEME I BEGAN SOME TIME AGO:

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris didn't make vouchers as done a deal, as automatic,
as ok, as legal as some would like others to believe nor is it written in
concrete and could very easily be reversed in the future with the same
court (though probably unlikely), a different court:

#1
The Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case did not give a green light for all school
vouchers programs, only ones designed in a similar way to the Cleveland
School District's voucher program. The Court ruled a legal voucher program
must:

* Be a part of a wider program of multiple educational options including
magnet schools and after-school tutorial assistance,

* Offer parents a real choice between religious and nonreligious education,

* Not only address private schools, but ensure benefits go to schools
regardless of whether they are public or private, religious or not.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris also was narrowly decided on a split 5 to 4
decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the court with
Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joining. Justice O'Connor
also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Thomas. Souter filed a dissenting
opinion joined by Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens filed his own
dissenting opinion and Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Stevens
and Souter.
The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court. Lita Epstein, J.D. Alpha
Book, (2004) p. 182-3
***********************************************************
#2
That also went along with the following from a legal analysis of the
Cleveland voucher case by Steven K. Green shortly aftet the USSC handed
down it's ruling: (The entire analysis is no longer available on line and
I thought I had copied the entire analysis but I have come to discover I
only have this section of it on my computer)

(1) The recent USSC decision did not automatically give a green light to
vouchers. Not all voucher schemes will pass constitutional muster. The
ruling did not say any and all voucher schemes are now constitutional

(2) While some recent USSC rulings did overturn previous USSC rulings in
the area of aid to religious schools, etc, Nyquist has not been overturned.

(3) The recent USSC ruling did not require states to pass voucher plans.

(4) The battlefield has shifted now to the states. Vouchers have not fared
well when voters have been given the chance to vote on such. Even when
voters have been bypassed and lawmakers have tried to pass voucher plans,
such plans have frequently been defeated in the state legislatures.

(5) Not all plans that might emerge from a state legislature will pass
constitutional muster with regards to the state constitution or the recent
USSC ruling.

(6) The recent USSC ruling pertains to that particular plan.

(7) School vouchers shifts battle to states Despite Court Ruling. Voucher
Schemes Will Still Face Major Hurdles
EXCEPT fronm a legal analysis of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris by Steven K.
Green then lead litigator for Americans United for Separation of Church and
State level:
ON BRIEF: Steven K. Green, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE, Washington, D.C.
Green has participated in several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court,
including Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Cleveland school vouchers
case, Mitchell v. Helms (2000), authorizing state-paid computers and
educational equipment to religious schools, and Santa Fe Ind Sch. Dist. v.
Doe (2000), striking prayer at public school football games.
**************************************************************
#3
THE VOUCHER DECISION
Benjamin Dowling-Sendor
http://www.asbj.com/2002/10/1002schoollaw.html
[EXCERPT]
Right analysis, wrong criteria

As a matter of legal analysis, the majority was correct in deciding that
the court's decisions in Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest dictate the result
in this case. That is, once the court had adopted the criteria of
neutrality and choice to permit government support of private religious
education, the die was cast, and a decision to uphold the constitutionality
of vouchers became inevitable.

Like the dissenters, however, I question the court's use of those two
criteria. I agree with the dissenters that the court's concept of
neutrality is overly broad and that the court's endorsement of indirect
payment from government to parent to school is a transparent evasion of the
Establishment Clause's prohibition against government financial support for
religion. But the three earlier decisions clearly set the stage for
Cleveland's program and this case.

The decision in Zelman does not necessarily end all legal disputes over
vouchers. I can foresee continuing Establishment Clause litigation over
whether particular voucher programs comply with Zelman. Also, litigation in
state courts will be required to decide whether individual state
constitutions permit voucher programs. (In August, a Florida judge ruled
that the state's voucher program violates the Florida constitution.)
************************************************************
#4

FindLaw Forum: Why the Supreme Court's recent vouchers opinion was wrong
By Marci A. Hamilton
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/columns/fl.hamilton.vouchers.0701/
]EXCERPT]

The importance of Justice O'Connor's separate concurring opinion

Justice O'Connor separately concurred in the case. The concurrence has
obvious significance, as the Justice was the crucial fifth vote for the
result. It should provide comfort to those who feel voucher plans that aid
religion will now run rampant, unchecked by courts; O'Connor's concurrence
shows that isn't so.

In her concurrence, the justice adds extensive statistical analysis to try
to show that the choice here is truly universal and not skewed toward
religious schools. As always, she is looking for rigorous and persuasive
facts. The empirical inquiry reflects her sincere concern -- voiced more
directly in Mitchell v. Helms -- that aid may not be skewed toward the
benefit of religious institutions.

Justice O'Connor's searching, empirical approach accordingly leaves
significant latitude to find future voucher schemes unconstitutional -- and
that is a good thing. It also opens the way for the Court to someday
backtrack from Zelman when litigants gather sufficient data to show how
such a scheme alters the balance between church and state in favor of the
churches. Wait for the first religious school to build a new addition or to
add a new chapel using the new government tuition as seed money.

The contrast between the majority and the dissent

The dissenters and the majority in Zelman reach different conclusions
because they read the facts differently.

The majority claims the Cleveland plan, by provide many options, offers
"true choice." Thus, the majority concludes, it does not violate the
establishment clause.

In contrast, the dissenters see the voucher system in the context of the
social reality that the vast majority of schools that are likely to receive
-- and that actually are receiving -- the Cleveland program's funding are
religious. Thus, it is not a system of "true" choice, but rather one that
prefers, benefits, and serves religion.

The dissenters also differ from the majority in that they see, in the
provision of government aid, the possibility of an abuse of power by
religious entities that can threaten democracy and the public good.
Pragmatic and distrustful -- very much like the Framers -- the dissenters
thus refuse to adopt the "see-no-evil" stance of the majority.

They are right to remain skeptical. As the Cleveland scheme continues, with
the Court's blessing, it will soon become clear how much it, indeed,
contributes towards an establishment of religion by the state. The people
are not as isolated from the reality of the possibility of religious
overreaching as the Justices appear to be.
*************************************************************
# 5
COURTS: A Decision of Consequence: The Supreme Court issued a
significant free exercise ruling on 25 February 2005 that portends a
potential obstacle for supporters of school vouchers and faith-based
initiatives. In a 7 to-2 vote, the High Court overturned a Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruling which held that Washington State's exclusion of
theology majors in its Promise Scholarship Program, which offers financial
assistance toward post-secondary education costs to academically gifted
students, unfavorably singled out religion in an unconstitutional manner
that did not satisfy a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court
disagreed, ruling that the Promise Scholarship Program offered an
acceptable level of inclusiveness of benefit to religion, as it allowed
those awarded assistance to attend accredited, private, church-affiliated
institutions and permitted students to enroll in courses in theology so
long as the scholarship is not utilized to solely fund pastoral education.
As such, the Court decided that neither the scholarship program nor the
Washington State Constitution demonstrated any unacceptable animus toward
religion. Thus the court could not "conclude that the denial of funding for
vocational religious instruction alone is inherently constitutionally
suspect."
****************************************************************
#6
Seminal or Symbolic? STEVEN K. GREEN
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/fulltext/futureschool/35.pdf
[EXCERPT]
In a similar manner, reliance on private choice. obscures
larger considerations of the degree and comprehensiveness of
government subsidies of religion, concerns that lie at the heart
of the nonestablishment mandate.12 As discussed below,
voucher aid can involve substantial transfers of public funds
to religion, create dependency on the government largesse, and
threaten the autonomy and integrity of religious institutions.
These concerns arise irrespective of whether the act of private
choice is truly genuine, meaningful, and independent.
Granted, we acknowledged in our brief that private choice
could be a factor in assessing an Establishment Clause violation.that .true
private choice,. as Justice O.Connor termed it two years earlier13.could
neutralize the constitutional inÞrmity of aid advancing religion, but only
where a broad universe of options exists among which to choose. Choice is
only genuine and meaningful if the beneÞciary has a wide variety of
options, exercises some independent control over the funds, and is not
effectively forced to redeem his beneÞt only at religious sources.
Otherwise, the beneÞciary.s control and discretion over how the funds are
applied would be transparent, and the ultimate use at a religious school
would correctly be attributable to the state.14
We pointed to the fact that over 80 percent of schools par-
ticipating under the Cleveland program are religious and that when one
considered the number of seats available to voucher eligible students, the
ratio rises to 96 percent religious. (Actually, during the 2001.2002 school
year, religious seats accounted for 99 percent of the available private
school openings). We also noted that no suburban public school participates
in the program, nor are any likely to participate based on past practice
under both the voucher program and interdistrict transfer programs. This
means that meaningful choice is illusive; that if you are a parent with a
voucher, 99 percent of the potential uses are at religious schools. This
skewing of options creates an incentive for religious education and is
unconstitutional.
The Court rejected our argument that true private choice does not
exist, despite the preponderance of religious schools participating under
the program. Initially, the majority reiterated that the number of students
who end up in religious schools under the program is irrelevant. Provided
the program is neutral on its face, the amount of government aid channeled
to religious institutions by recipients has no constitutional significance
that it would be loath to have a constitutional rule turn on how program
beneÞciaries choose to exercise their options.15
This part of the ruling mischaracterized our argument (and
sidestepped the issue of neutrality) in two respects. First, we argued that
the 99 percent figure is indicative not of how parents have decided to
exercise their options in a truly open universe but of the availability of
options themselves. As stated, in Cleveland, if a parent wants her child to
participate in the voucher program, there is a mathematical certainty that
she will attend a religious school, regardless of what that parent
desires.16 This makes the ultimate placement decision attributable to the
state. Second, we argued that the Court could not presume the neutrality of
the program merely from its face but rather from how it works in practice.
The fact that 99 percent of options are religious indicates that the
program is not truly neutral, notwithstanding the absence of any religious
language in the statute. Neutrality cannot be determined in isolation of
the facts.
The Court also held (primarily through Justice O.Connor) that the
appropriate universe to consider for genuine private choice is not that of
the participating private schools but includes magnet, charter, and
possibly even public schools.17The Court maintained that voucher parents
are able to consider
all of these educational options for their children (even though some
magnet and charter schools do not offer the same grades as the religious
schools), and when one considers all these alternatives, the percentage of
children attending religious schools drops to under 20 percent.18 The fact
that two nonreligious private schools had converted to community/charter
schools after the program was initiated added credence to the argument that
the various types of schools are all part of the same universe of options
for the parents.
Despite that last fact, the Court still chose the wrong base-
line, for the entire purpose of the voucher program is to provide an
alternative to public schooling. If a parent desires a voucher in order to
remove his child from the public schools, considering those options in the
universe.or at least traditional public school offerings in the mix19.is
analytically dishonest and skews the range of true alternatives for
parents. For those parents, the alternative of the public schools is
already closed.
Second, eligibility for the various educational alternatives often
varies widely, as do program content and emphasis. Some programs are
needs-based, some are competitive, others rely on lotteries for entry,
while all options are affected by factors such as convenience, available
transportation, and program content. For example, a magnet school with a
French immersion program or one for math-gifted students may not be a
realistic option for many children. Although a small number of children may
be eligible for several of the education alternatives, most children will
likely qualify for only one alternative. Justice O.Connor resorted to a
high degree of formalism by claiming that a community/charter school does
not have to offer the same grades or programs as a religious school to
represent an option for a voucher-eligible student.20 Third, there is a
qualitative difference between public and private schools that argues
against including public schools in the constitutional equation.
Differences in funding schemes, accountability requirements, curriculum
standards, and legal obligations distinguish the two institutions. This
consideration leads to a fourth: even if charter and magnet schools should
be included within the greater universe of options, that consideration
fails to address the composition of the private school universe. For
parents who prefer a private school alternative, there should be a balanced
secular-sectarian mix to guarantee that choice is not skewed. A state
cannot circumvent its constitutional obligation of nonadvancement of
religion by creating a predominately religious program but then seeking to
counterbalance it with two or three secular programs. The constitutionality
of each program must stand in its own. Otherwise, the no-funding
prohibition would lose all meaning, since the state could always point to
other related programs to counteract the purposeful support of religion.21

12. See: Steven K. Green, .Private School Vouchers and the
Confusion Over Direct Aid,. 10 Geo. Mason Univ. Civ. R. L. J. 47 (Winter
1999/Spring 2000); Laura S. Underkufßer, .Vouchers and Beyond: The
Individual as Causative Agent in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence,. 75
Ind. L. J. 167 (Winter 2000).
13. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 842 (2000) (O.Connor, J.,
concurringin the judgment).
14. See Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1, 10
(1993) (noting that as a prerequisite for constitutionality, beneÞciary
choices cannot be attributed to state decisionmaking.).
15. 122 S. Ct. at 2470.
16. Id. at 2496 (Souter, J., dissenting) (.The 96.6 percent
reßects, instead, the fact that too few nonreligious school desks are
available and few but religious schools can afford to accept more than a
handful of voucher students.).
17. Id. at 2469, 2478.
18. Id. at 2471.
19. Id. at 2469 (.schoolchildren enjoy a range of options: They may
remain in public school.).
20. Id. at 2479.
21. See id. at 2493 (Souter, J., dissenting). See Steven K. Green,
The Illusionary Aspect of .Private Choice. for Constitutional Analysis,. 38
Willamette L. Rev. 549, 571.72 (Fall 2002).
==============================================

I RECOMMEND YOU READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AND SHOULD
YOU WANT TO EMAIL HIM, I PROVIDED HIS EMAIL ADDRESS
IN ANOTHER REPLY TO YOU YESTERDAY

Riley M. Sinder · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

-----------------------------------------------------------

[[There is no God.

But notwithstanding there being no God,
since 1947, the United States Supreme Court
has violated the spirit and letter of the Establishment
Clause by establishing the religion of Jefferson and
Madison as federal law to beat down the entirely
secular political influence of the Catholic Church
and similarly situated entirely secular political interest
groups.]]

> Patrick noted that the 1947 Supreme Court in Everson
> established the religion of Jefferson and Madison
> as the United States national religion when it wrote:

> >[Madison] argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that
> >no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a
> >religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society
> >required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel
> >persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established
> >religions.

buckeye, torching his own grass hut and
smelling smoke, wrote:

> Gee, this happened last time too. Only then it was Susupply and Riley M.
> Sinder who joined forces with Barclay. They didn't help him much at that
> time either. In fact as I recall he exited and left them holding the bag.

> BTW where is your buddy Susupply? Haven't seen him around in quite some
> time.

We are up here in what you mortals call heaven, observing the
wonderful blindness of those who re-enact the bigotry of the
ages like the good descendants of the good Christian chimpanzee
Eve that they are.

..
..
..

Bob LeChevalier · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 350

Doan wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Doan wrote:
>> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >> I don't think so.
>> >>
>> >> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
>> >> choosing.
>> >>
>> >How much more?
>>
>> As much as needed to be able to make an ADEQUATE choice.
>>
>And how do you know they haven't.

If they had enough information to make an adequate choice, they
wouldn't have chosen a scam.

>Even the CIA don't have all the information!

So? The CIA has made some inadequate choices as a result.

>> >I said best choice "under the circumstances".
>>
>> And the choice to seek more information is a choice they omitted.
>>
>You don't know that!

If they didn't omit it, it was a better choice than wasting their
money on a scam.

>> No one held a gun to their head and said "choose one of the options
>> you know about with no further research".
>>
>But if the government making the decision for them, they don't even
>have an options!

Yes they do. In this country they have the choice of ignoring the
government decision and paying for an alternative using their own
money.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Kane · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 801

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:57:05 -0700, Doan wrote:

>
>LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy.

To the typical garbage you, the "often-spanked boy" who doesn't know
if I was or not, clutter up newsgroups with. 0;->

I always like to warn folks about you when you finally become so
tiresome that even a naughty child has to be told he's naughty.

Naughty, naughty. Stop Droananating were everyone can see you. You
know you should go to your room to do that. R R R R R R

>Doan

Kane

>
>On 13 Aug 2004, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:49:56 -0700, Doan wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doan wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >> >> >> No. SOMEONE (possibly them or their parents) made *a*
choice
>> for
>> >> >> >> them. It obviously was NOT the "best choice" since it was
a
>> fraud.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Are you saying that have no choices but to go to that
school?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They may not know of any other choices.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Then they have made the "best choice" under the circumstances!
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so.
>> >>
>> >> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
>> >> choosing.
>> >>
>> >How much more? I said best choice "under the circumstances".
>> >
>> >> >> >> >What do you think
>> >> >> >> >they should have done under these circumstances? Would
you
>> let
>> >> >> >> >the government make these choices for them?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I have no problem with it. It would have been better than
>> being
>> >> >> >> defrauded.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >So you want the government to make the choices for you???
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The government has generally done better for my kids (with my
>> >> >> advocacy), than I would have done on my own. There are
choices
>> that I
>> >> >> would have made that I now realize would have been wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >You are avoiding the question. Do you or do you not want the
>> government to
>> >> >made the choices for you?
>> >>
>> >> I don't have a pat answer to that question, so I won't give one.
>> >> Sometimes I prefer not to make choices, and sometimes I prefer
to
>> make
>> >> them. It depends on the choice and my personal involvement in
that
>> >> choice. I have relatively little problem with having to be
totally
>> >> responsible for the financing of my choice when it is me rather
>> than
>> >> the government that makes the choice.
>> >>
>> >But we are a government "of the people, for the people". I rather
>> it's
>> >the people that made the choices!
>>
>> You have no idea how political choices are made in this country,
>> though the process is out there exposed to you on almost a daily
>> basis. And you misquoted, as is usual when you try for informative
>> fact and data.
>>
>> It's "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
>>
>> I realize it is probably above your grade level in comprehension,
but
>> you might visit here and learn.
>>
>> http://www.manteno.k12.il.us/drussert/WebQuests/KenWynn/AmericanGovernmentWebQuest.htm
>>
>> >> >> On the other hand, I did rather worse by trusting a couple of
>> private
>> >> >> sector physicians over my own judgment on certain health
>> matters,
>> >> >> though in the long term this probably will turn out a wash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >I like to make my own choices!
>> >>
>> >> And have us pay for them when you can't afford them.
>> >>
>> >We live in a democracy! It's not us bet we!
>>
>> Figured it out yet, Bob?
>>
>> Droany doesn't debate. He nitpicks and hairsplits you to death, and
>> often with bogus assumptions, and pure ignorance leavened with
phony
>> intellect.
>>
>> Like the idea that we live in a "democracy!"
>>
>> Apparently he's never taken a PoliSci course, or he'd know better.
>>
>> We live in a republic, a modified representative democracy...where
we
>> do NOT make choices, we elect others to make choices for us, and
>> badger the hell out of them if we know what's good for us.
>>
>> If this were a true democracy we would be holding town hall
meetings
>> every Tues and Thursday of every week of the year and we still
>> wouldn't be getting anything done.
>>
>> If we were a true democracy we'd still be slaveholders, women would
>> still not be enfrancised, and children would be beaten and we'd
call
>> it spank.......oh, wait. WE DO still do that. Well, no one's
>> perfect...R R R R R R
>>
>> Pure democracy is three wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on
>> what's for dinner.
>>
>> Droany wouldn't survive more than a day under a pure democracy.
He's
>> such an offense to civilization he'd be charged, tried, and
executed,
>> or deported before sundown.
>>
>> Droany is a dunce in many areas. Just google up his archives and
take
>> a look at the arguments he presents and declares himself a winner.
>>
>> If he decides to choose you as a target to badger any attempt on
your
>> part to be objective, logical, or ethical in debate will be seen as
a
>> bare exposed throat by him.
>>
>> He's a predator in these ngs and has been for years.
>>
>> If you breed a troll to a pitbull you get a Droananator.
>>
>> He favors his mother.
>>
>> R R R R R R
>>
>> Don't waste your time with him. There isn't a complete working pair
of
>> brain cells to rub together in a carload of his nonsense.
>>
>> 'Course if you are having fun exposing a fool, know that it's been
>> done to death. Half a dozen or so folks in the aps ng has been
doing
>> it for years.
>>
>> >Doan
>>
>> Kane
>>

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

buckeye-jalison wrote:...
> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>
> >:|MK. There is evidence the other way. According to either Frederick
> >:|Wirt or Thomas Vitulo Martin (sorry, can't remember), Federal aid to
> >:|religious schools predated Federal aid to secular schools, when
> >:|President Jefferson arranged to have the Federal government pay the
> >:|property taxes of a Catholic school in Detroit.
>
> Thomas Jefferson was president from 1801 to 1809
>
> Your source didn't do his homework.
>
> *************************************************************
> Nathan Dane and the Ordinance of 1787
> http://www.primaryresearch.org/PRTHB/Dane/Murray/murray.htm
> [excerpt]
> . . . The ordinance says that the revenue generated from the sale of a
> portion of each township in the state would go to fund public education.
> This was the first instance of federal aid for education in American
> history.
> *******************************************************************
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
> **********************************************************
> Land Ordinance of 1785 (2019 bytes)
> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Land_Ordinance_of_1785
>
> 1: ...]]. The Confederation Congress was not able to tax citizens, so the
> immediate goal of the ordinance was to raise money through the sale of land
> in the largely unmapped territory west of the...
> 3: ...tates|United States of America]] until passage of the [[Homestead
> Act]] in 1862. The Land Ordinance established the basis for the [[Public
> Land Survey System]]. Land was to be systematicall...
> 5: The ordinance was also significant for establishing a mechanism for
> funding public education. The sixte...
> http://www.wordiq.com/search/Ordinance.html
> *************************************************************
> EDUCATION, ROOTED IN REAL ESTATE
> (Little red schoolhouses were painted red, like barns, because of cheap
> paint. The red pigment came from abundant clay.) by Larry Lick Sr.
> http://rhol.org/rental/education_costs.htm
> [EXCERPT]
> At our nation's birth, only the rich could send their children to
> school. However, Tom Jefferson and others, envisioned and worked toward a
> public school system that would use income from the sale and rental of
> public land as a funding source, which could endow education in perpetuity.
>
> The "Ordinance of 1785", which was adopted even before the US
> Constitution,...
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
MK. Thanks, jalison. I once said that I find jalison's historical work
useful. To jalison's criticism of my source: First, the charitable
assumption would be that MK. has mis-remembered. That is possible.
Second, if some words like "direct financial" preceeded "aid", then
Thomas Vitulo Martin's contention could still be accurate. Third, if
Mr Martin (I'm making that convenient assumprion about this vaguely
remembered source. It could have been Frederick Wirt) intended
"Federal" to mean --US-- Constitutional, then the government of the
Articles of confederation doesn't count, and the US Constitution
wasn't adopted until 1788. Fourth (and this doesn't address jalison's
point, but it's a worthwhile observation, seems to me), if what Mr.
Martin says is true about Jefferson arranging for the Federal
Government to pay the property taxes of a Catholic school in Detroit,
then he wasn't averse to State support of Church-operated schools.
Finally, (again this is not to the point about priority), NOT ("public
education"="State-operated schools). School vouchers and Catholic
schools support "public education".
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c68c8207-770a-44e2-9878-1b5cc218e1a7
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8cced98d-1a22-4122-8c66-f3d22b6ff3c4
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d3c6eacf-066c-441e-bde8-d553afd846f8
http://www.nlpc.org
http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxbyleigh_pulledaway.pdf
http://www.daycaresdontcare.org/
>
A book review by John Ray...
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/berg.html
>

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

LOL! Kane0 is looking in the mirror again!

Doan

On 14 Aug 2004, Kane wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:57:05 -0700, Doan wrote:
>
> >
> >LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy.
>
> To the typical garbage you, the "often-spanked boy" who doesn't know
> if I was or not, clutter up newsgroups with. 0;->
>
> I always like to warn folks about you when you finally become so
> tiresome that even a naughty child has to be told he's naughty.
>
> Naughty, naughty. Stop Droananating were everyone can see you. You
> know you should go to your room to do that. R R R R R R
>
> >Doan
>
> Kane
>
>
> >
> >On 13 Aug 2004, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:49:56 -0700, Doan wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Doan wrote:
> >> >> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> >> >> >> No. SOMEONE (possibly them or their parents) made *a*
> choice
> >> for
> >> >> >> >> them. It obviously was NOT the "best choice" since it was
> a
> >> fraud.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Are you saying that have no choices but to go to that
> school?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They may not know of any other choices.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Then they have made the "best choice" under the circumstances!
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think so.
> >> >>
> >> >> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
> >> >> choosing.
> >> >>
> >> >How much more? I said best choice "under the circumstances".
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >What do you think
> >> >> >> >> >they should have done under these circumstances? Would
> you
> >> let
> >> >> >> >> >the government make these choices for them?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I have no problem with it. It would have been better than
> >> being
> >> >> >> >> defrauded.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >So you want the government to make the choices for you???
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The government has generally done better for my kids (with my
> >> >> >> advocacy), than I would have done on my own. There are
> choices
> >> that I
> >> >> >> would have made that I now realize would have been wrong.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >You are avoiding the question. Do you or do you not want the
> >> government to
> >> >> >made the choices for you?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't have a pat answer to that question, so I won't give one.
> >> >> Sometimes I prefer not to make choices, and sometimes I prefer
> to
> >> make
> >> >> them. It depends on the choice and my personal involvement in
> that
> >> >> choice. I have relatively little problem with having to be
> totally
> >> >> responsible for the financing of my choice when it is me rather
> >> than
> >> >> the government that makes the choice.
> >> >>
> >> >But we are a government "of the people, for the people". I rather
> >> it's
> >> >the people that made the choices!
> >>
> >> You have no idea how political choices are made in this country,
> >> though the process is out there exposed to you on almost a daily
> >> basis. And you misquoted, as is usual when you try for informative
> >> fact and data.
> >>
> >> It's "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
> >>
> >> I realize it is probably above your grade level in comprehension,
> but
> >> you might visit here and learn.
> >>
> >> http://www.manteno.k12.il.us/drussert/WebQuests/KenWynn/AmericanGovernmentWebQuest.htm
> >>
> >> >> >> On the other hand, I did rather worse by trusting a couple of
> >> private
> >> >> >> sector physicians over my own judgment on certain health
> >> matters,
> >> >> >> though in the long term this probably will turn out a wash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >I like to make my own choices!
> >> >>
> >> >> And have us pay for them when you can't afford them.
> >> >>
> >> >We live in a democracy! It's not us bet we!
> >>
> >> Figured it out yet, Bob?
> >>
> >> Droany doesn't debate. He nitpicks and hairsplits you to death, and
> >> often with bogus assumptions, and pure ignorance leavened with
> phony
> >> intellect.
> >>
> >> Like the idea that we live in a "democracy!"
> >>
> >> Apparently he's never taken a PoliSci course, or he'd know better.
> >>
> >> We live in a republic, a modified representative democracy...where
> we
> >> do NOT make choices, we elect others to make choices for us, and
> >> badger the hell out of them if we know what's good for us.
> >>
> >> If this were a true democracy we would be holding town hall
> meetings
> >> every Tues and Thursday of every week of the year and we still
> >> wouldn't be getting anything done.
> >>
> >> If we were a true democracy we'd still be slaveholders, women would
> >> still not be enfrancised, and children would be beaten and we'd
> call
> >> it spank.......oh, wait. WE DO still do that. Well, no one's
> >> perfect...R R R R R R
> >>
> >> Pure democracy is three wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on
> >> what's for dinner.
> >>
> >> Droany wouldn't survive more than a day under a pure democracy.
> He's
> >> such an offense to civilization he'd be charged, tried, and
> executed,
> >> or deported before sundown.
> >>
> >> Droany is a dunce in many areas. Just google up his archives and
> take
> >> a look at the arguments he presents and declares himself a winner.
> >>
> >> If he decides to choose you as a target to badger any attempt on
> your
> >> part to be objective, logical, or ethical in debate will be seen as
> a
> >> bare exposed throat by him.
> >>
> >> He's a predator in these ngs and has been for years.
> >>
> >> If you breed a troll to a pitbull you get a Droananator.
> >>
> >> He favors his mother.
> >>
> >> R R R R R R
> >>
> >> Don't waste your time with him. There isn't a complete working pair
> of
> >> brain cells to rub together in a carload of his nonsense.
> >>
> >> 'Course if you are having fun exposing a fool, know that it's been
> >> done to death. Half a dozen or so folks in the aps ng has been
> doing
> >> it for years.
> >>
> >> >Doan
> >>
> >> Kane
> >>
>

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> Doan wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> >> I don't think so.
> >> >>
> >> >> The "best choice" would have been to get more information before
> >> >> choosing.
> >> >>
> >> >How much more?
> >>
> >> As much as needed to be able to make an ADEQUATE choice.
> >>
> >And how do you know they haven't.
>
> If they had enough information to make an adequate choice, they
> wouldn't have chosen a scam.
>
They would have the government making the choice for them?

> >Even the CIA don't have all the information!
>
> So? The CIA has made some inadequate choices as a result.
>
Who has not?

> >> >I said best choice "under the circumstances".
> >>
> >> And the choice to seek more information is a choice they omitted.
> >>
> >You don't know that!
>
> If they didn't omit it, it was a better choice than wasting their
> money on a scam.
>
No one is perfect!

> >> No one held a gun to their head and said "choose one of the options
> >> you know about with no further research".
> >>
> >But if the government making the decision for them, they don't even
> >have an options!
>
> Yes they do. In this country they have the choice of ignoring the
> government decision and paying for an alternative using their own
> money.
>
I thought they was using their own money in this case!

Doan

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:

>:|MK. Thanks, jalison. I once said that I find jalison's historical work
>:|useful.

Well, I don't know as much about law, etrc as I do history, but I know more
about law than you do. I have plenty of legal/law books here, knowledge
about where to find legal information in Pat Robertson's law school law
library, or to a lessor degree sometimes online, plus access to three
attorney's who are/were involved in varying degrees with the web site.
That doesn't seem to stop you from disagreeing with every item I post on
the topic and you have disagreed with my history posts time after time
after time as well.
You're just a disagreeable fellow (hehehehehehe)

>:}To jalison's criticism of my source: First, the charitable
>:|assumption would be that MK. has mis-remembered.

It has been show far too many times by far too many people that you tend to
misrepresent, misstate things. (that is being polite, I think some people
have used harsher terms in describing what you do at times.)

>:|That is possible.
>:|Second, if some words like "direct financial" preceeded "aid", then
>:|Thomas Vitulo Martin's contention could still be accurate. Third, if
>:|Mr Martin (I'm making that convenient assumprion about this vaguely
>:|remembered source. It could have been Frederick Wirt) intended
> Neutral

"Federal" to mean --US-- Constitutional, then the government of the
>:|Articles of confederation doesn't count, and the US Constitution
>:|wasn't adopted until 1788.

The Land Ordinance of 1785, while never officially passed by the
government, it was the formula used with regards to surveying, laying out
the townships and using the 16th section for the support of public schools
in each township.

The Northwest Ordinance was passed by the existing Congress July 13, 1787
and was re-passed under the authority of the U S Constitution by the First
federal Congress in the summer of 1789.

My hometown happens to be the "POINT OF BEGINNING" the exact spot (border
of the state of Penna and the Ohio River) where that surveying began. it
was the first township.
--------------------------------------------------
East Liverpool, Ohio
"America's Hometown"

The beautiful Ohio Valley is the setting for the City of East
Liverpool. Located on the Ohio River in Columbiana County (named in honor
of Christopher Columbus and Queen Anna), it lies at the point where the
states of Ohio, Pennslyvania, and West Virgina meet. Eastern Indian tribes,
including several Iroquois groups, occupied the land before it was
purchased by Isaac Craig under the terms of the Land Act of 1796. On July
1, 1800, Thomas Fawcett purchased approximatly 1100 acres from Mr. Craig.
Fawcett, his wife and eight children settled in an area with few residents
that could have been classified as a frontier. Although Fawcett named the
town St. Clair, in honor of Authur St. Clair, Govenor of the Northwest
Territory at the time, it was christened Fawcettstown by its residents and
other local people. The town was named Liverpool by a nostalgic English
potters who migrated here and in 1834 incorporated as East Liverpool
becuase of a town in Medina County, Ohio already named Liverpool.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Liverpool did have, in time a public school, which would have been
funded under the formula laid out by the Land Ordinance of 1785, but that
probably happened after 1801.

However, other towns (settlements)were formed in what would in time become
known as the state of Ohio, as well as portions of what would be known as
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Michigan, etc before 1801 and some of them
would have had a rudimentary school building in place and functioning
before Jefferson became President.
There is some evidence that Marietta, Ohio had a functioning school of some
sort by 1788.

By February 1801, a month before Jefferson was sworn in as President, there
were advertisements showing up in portions of Ohio in search of "gentlemen"
schoolmasters. I don't have much information regarding the other parts of
the "Northwest Territory" those sections that later became Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. However, there were settlements in some of
those others places by March 1801. implying that there were children, thus
a need for schools of some kind.

Colleges were beginning to spring up in the Northwest Territory fairly
early in the 1800s, but would have been after Jefferson was president.

>:|Fourth (and this doesn't address jalison's
>:|point, but it's a worthwhile observation, seems to me), if what Mr.
>:|Martin says is true about Jefferson arranging for the Federal
>:|Government to pay the property taxes of a Catholic school in Detroit,
>:|then he wasn't averse to State support of Church-operated schools.
>:|Finally, (again this is not to the point about priority), NOT ("public
>:|education"="State-operated schools). School vouchers and Catholic
>:|schools support "public education".

What do you think Detroit was in the late 1700s early 1800s?
Probably a fort/settlement on the frontier. It sure wasn't a thriving
city.

Catholics were frequently hated in colonial America and early US
However, a interesting note, Catholic Priests on the frontier were
frequently Indian agents too. There was some thinking that Christianity
could "civilize" the Indians.

I'll give you some help here:

Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
**************************************************
From: somebody@anywhere.com (somebody@anywhere.com)
Subject: Re: Christian Coalition Targets Black Churches
View: Complete Thread (4 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.history
Date: 1997/07/26
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=First+Amendment+didn%27t+apply+to+indians&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=33db08bd.2422178%40news.infi.net&rnum=1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P5F862F09

[EXCERPT]

[I had said]

"Neither the BOR nor the Constitution was applied to the Indians, and
the US government did much as it wanted to do with and in regards to the
Indians. it used both the Army and religion to destroy their culture
over and over again and came close to totally destroying them as a people."

They weren't American citizens, nor was Jefferson or Washington, who did
the same, feel they were subject to the restrictions that the Constitution
placed such possible dealings with American citizens, states, etc.

If you would like to explore this in greater detail I recommend the
following book: RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS
AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, by John Wunder. it is a current book (1994) well
written and well documented.

The following sheds more light on this subject. It is part of the affidavit
that we sent to the group of lawyers that was writing a friends of the
court brief on behave of the Alabama Historical society to be filed with
the Alabama Supreme Court in the Judge Moore Ten Commandments case to be
heard later this summer..

Eidsmoe, in case you aren't familiar with the name is a lawyer and ultra
Right author who writes frequently in defense of Religious Rights
positions. he had filed an affidavit. on Judge Moores behave, and I was
primarily responding to his claims in his affidavit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Page 10 of Eidsmoe's Supplementary affidavit contains that tired
old argument used by several of the religious right, over and over
again. They really ought to be ashamed of themselves. I speak of
Thomas Jefferson funding the religious education of the Indians.
(The very same critics are reluctant to mention that even Washington
was guilty of denying the Indians religious liberty protection.)

I think Robert Cord also makes this famous argument, and he should
have known better. The argument is that since Catholic Priests were
given money to convert the Indians, therefore, the principle of
separation of church and state does not preclude the funding of, among
other things, religious schools. This argument begins to fall apart,
however, when it is revealed that most of the Catholic Priests who
received money during that time period for the purpose of converting
Indians, were in fact, employed by the government as Indian Agents.

A. Enclosed you will find some portions of a book, RETAINED BY THE
PEOPLE, A History of American Indians and the Bill of Rights, By John
R Wunder, which basically argues that Indians were thought of
differently, and were treated differently. Washington, Jefferson and
any other president who had dealings with the Indians would have dealt
with them totally differently, viewed them totally differently then
anyone else.

According to Wunder, the Bill of Rights never applied to the
Indian nations, and the status of Indians in the early republic was
ambiguous. The founders (Jefferson included) spoke of the Indians as
separate nations, but always thought of them, in some very tenuous
sense, as citizens. As time went on, their status as independent
nations became less and less emphasized, and their status as
quasi-citizens became more and more prominent. Needless to say, this
process was helped by a variety Supreme Court decisions that deprived
the Indians of rights that a more sympathetic reading of the
Constitution might have given them.

In any case, let me quote from the book:

But what is important here is whether the Bill of Rights
amendments applied to Native Americans in 1791. What was meant by the
phrase "of the people" in these amendments? .... Might Native
Americans be covered once they signed treaties turning over much of
their lands to the United States? Did the Constitution include Native
Americans residing on reservations within the geopolitical boundaries
of the United States?

From the very first applications of the Bill of Rights, native
Americans have not been covered by its penumbra....Although they were
not yet citizens of the Unites States, they also were not aliens.
Congress and the Supreme court therefore moved to develop laws that
created a new kind of legal life for Indians within the American legal
system. Indians, after all, held sovereignty over the lands that
became the United States, and this allowed for a residue of
sovereignly left over in the tribes after the signing of treaty
documents. If an Indian ceases being an Indian per se and renounced
his or her tribal status, then the Bill of Rights might apply. Thus in
their relationship with the first ten amendments, Native Americans
were considered both pre-Bill of Rights and extra-Bill of Rights."
(pages 20-21)

The book then goes on to discuss various laws passed by early
Congresses that pretty clearly violated the Bill of Rights, including
the First Amendment. Example: in 1800 Congress passed a
law that prevented the Indians from speaking diplomatically with other
nations, and that prevented the Indians from speaking against the
Federal government. Other laws severely limited the Indians rights of
trade with Americans. In the 1820s and 1830s Congress passed laws that
required Indians committing crimes against non-Indians to be tried in
Federal courts "even though Bill of Rights guarantees concerning
criminal procedure were not yet applicable to Indians."
(pg. 23).

Concluded Wunder:
"The passage of these trade laws and their subsequent implementation
meant that the Bill of Rights probably would not be applied to Indians
in the United States." (pg. 23).

The book certainly seems to suggest the founders thought of the
Indians as independent nations, but their actions weren't always
consistent with that belief. The more important issue here is that,
from the very beginning, Congress acted as if the Bill of Rights did
not apply to the Indians (since they weren't citizens). That might let
them do things with respect to religion that they simply wouldn't do
to a citizen of a state.

(After all, using a combination of Treaties, Laws and courts, and the
U S Army, we just about destroyed their culture and them as a people.
The leaders of this nation, no matter how great and noble, have always
treated the Indians "differently" and that is putting it mildly.

Any restrictions that the concept of separation of church and state,
found in the unamended constitution, or any reinforcement of those
restrictions that were created by the religious clauses of what is now
the 1st Amendment was not viewed as applying to the government in
regards to the native peoples of this land.)

(See Exhibit N)

B. The following court case while a 1959 case I suspect reflects the
mind set of many about Indians during the founding era and later times
in this country. The case is mentioned on page 119 of the book
(included in the exhibits)

The first amendment applies only to Congress. It limits the
powers of Congress, to interfere with religious freedom or religious
worship. It is made applicable to the states only by the 14th
amendment. Thus construed, the First Amendment places limitations upon
the action of Congress and of the states. But as declared in the
decisions hereinbefore discussed, Indian tribes are not states. They
have a status higher than that of states. They are subordinate and
dependent nations possessed of all powers as such only to the extent
that they have expressly been required to surrender them by the
superior sovereign, the United States. The Constitution is, of course
the supreme law of the land, but it is nonetheless a part of the laws
of the United States. Under the philosophy of the decisions, it, as
any other law, is binding upon Indians nations only where it expressly
binds them, or is made binding by treaty or some act of Congress. No
provision in the Constitution makes the First Amendment applicable to
Indian Nations nor is there any law of Congress doing so. It follows
that neither, under the Constitution or the laws of Congress, do the
federal courts have jurisdiction of tribal laws or regulations, even
though they may have an impact to some extent on forms of religious
worship.

(Holding of Native American Church v Navajo Tribal Council 272, F.2d
135, 1959

(See Exhibit O)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Coupled with the other information in the book, it is safe to say
that neither the President, in this case Jefferson, but Washington as
well, nor the Congress viewed Indians as coming under the Constitution
or Bill of Rights as such, and therefore any such actions in the form
of treaties would not viewed as a violation of any part of the
constitution.

"WE THE PEOPLE" did not include Indians, just at it did not include
blacks
*************************************************************
From: Thomas Peters (tnptete01@ulkyvm.louisville.edu)
Subject: Re: Separation of School and State
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Date: 1997/02/03
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=First+Amendment+didn%27t+apply+to+indians&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5d3tva%2410u%40geneva.rutgers.edu&rnum=3
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y22912F09
**************************************************************
LAST BUT NOT LEAST:

OCTOBER 1, 1803

Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-9 Cool

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote:

> Neutral

>

wrote in message
> Neutral

@4ax.com...
> Neutral

>

> (2) Anybody can read a court opinion but that doesn't mean anybody is
> Neutral

> going to understand what they are reading. That doesn't mean anybody
> Neutral

> is going to be able to correctly recognize and pick out the essential
> Neutral

> elements of that opinion, understand what they mean. Understand how
> Neutral

> this particular case may effect previous cases and how it might be
> Neutral

> applied to future situations.
> Neutral

>
>

>