News for those who stayed home on Election Day 2016 or voted third party because Hillary was “just as bad as Trump.” The first casualty of Trump’s election might be the state bans on vouchers for religious schools.
SUPREME COURT COULD CLEAR ROADBLOCKS TO SCHOOL VOUCHERS: The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear a case that could have huge implications for school voucher programs. At issue is an 1875 provision of Missouri’s Constitution banning public money from going “directly or indirectly” to religious groups, including schools. Similar provisions, called Blaine Amendments, exist in roughly three dozen states and have been a major barrier to school vouchers. They’ve also proved resilient, surviving numerous state ballot repeal efforts – including an unsuccessful Michigan initiative pushed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos nearly two decades ago.
– Religious groups see this and a related Colorado case as their best shots at scrapping the amendments – and they believe Neil Gorsuch, who just took his seat on the high court, will take their side. They point to Gorsuch’s deference to religious rights in other cases. Most notably, while on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he backed a religious challenge to the Affordable Care Act – joining the panel’s majority in the Hobby Lobby case to rule that the Obama administration could not require a closely-held business to offer contraceptive coverage if that interfered with the owners’ religious beliefs – a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. In another case, he ruled that a Wyoming prison had to provide a sweat lodge to a Native American for his religious practices.
– Court watchers believe Gorsuch might cast a tie-breaking vote since the court had apparently delayed arguments in the Missouri case until they had a ninth justice. “The justices have likely seen this as a case on which they would have been divided four to four,” said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University. “They must expect that Gorsuch will be the deciding fifth vote.” Benjamin Wermund has more on that here.
– There is a chance the case could get tossed out . The case hinges on the state’s denial of Trinity Lutheran Church’s request for a grant to reimburse the cost of resurfacing its preschool playground with recycled tires. State officials said the Blaine Amendment prevented it from aiding the church in any way. But late last week, Missouri’s newly elected Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, announced that he has directed the state agency to consider religious organizations for such grants. The parties on both sides must submit their views by noon today on whether the the announcement makes the legal dispute moot. Even if the justices dismiss this case, they could soon hear the same issues in a pending Colorado case in which the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State claim a school voucher program violates the state’s no-aid clause.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
These people make me sick.
Mitch McConnell–lots of reasons why our democracy is on the rack. If it’s breathing it’s last breath (and I believe it may be doing so) its because Mitch McConnell is at the center of them all.
No taxpayer money should ever be given to ANY religious or private schools EVER.
If I want to give money to religious institution, I’ll make a donation. I expect my taxes to be spent on secular endeavors, since we are not a theocracy.
What do you consider shredded tire chips, on a playground surface, where children from all faiths can play safely? Is this not a secular purpose. No one is going to be “saved from hell”, if they play on a safe playground.
If the state should pay for the playground, it should also pay for the roof and the parking lot and capital costs for a new building and heating and cooling and plumbing. No end. Your taxes should be raised to include the cost of maintenance of religious schools.
Borrowing from George Will, Charles?
You are not understanding the case. The state of Missouri set up a program, to recycle the tire chips. ANY playground could apply for the chips. The Trinity Lutheran school completed an application, and met all of the requirements. The state refused their application, solely on the provision in their constitution. (The state has since provided the tire chips to the playground).
There is nothing in the case, relating to building maintenance, roofs, parking lots,etc. If the Court finds for the plaintiff, the result will be that the state of Missouri (nor any state), can not discriminate against religious institutions. The children who play on the playground, are entitled to the equal protection of the law (14th amendment, US Constitution).
And I am a BIG fan of George Will, and the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
I consider shredded tire chips to be carcinogens, just like those rubber pellets in artificial fields that are in vogue all over the nation now. But of course the CDC will be prohibited from testing them, the NIH will not have the funds to do epidemiological studies, the EPA will never be allowed to implement common sense regulations, and there will be no school nurses monitor and document how students are affected in the short term.
Oh, and any specious attempt to justify public support for religious schools is pure sophistry. But as we’ve seen and will continue to see, the Supreme Court don’t care about no stinkin’ Constitution; they’re all about corporations and privatization.
Charles,
Being a Show Me Stater, I look to our state constitution for guidance and here is what it says about state monies for religious institutions:
Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.
Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. XI, § 11.
Please tell me how providing those “chips” squares with “nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.”
(Hint it doesn’t)
Q Please tell me how providing those “chips” squares with “nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.” END Q
Simple. The State of Missouri set up the program, to recycle the tire chips. Playground operators had to submit applications, to receive a grant. The Trinity school met all of the requirements for the grant. The state refused the grant, citing the constitutional prohibition.
The school’s position, is that the playground is open to all children in the neighborhood, 24 hours a day. The safety equipment provided by the state serves all users of the playground regardless of religious faith. Therefore, no creed or sectarian purpose is being advanced by the state.
The new governor has decided (properly), that the state will provide the safety equipment to the school, regardless of the verbiage in the constitution. No one is Missouri has yet to challenge this executive action.
The Blaine amendments, were born in a period of vicious anti-Catholic bigotry. The Supreme Court is going to send them to the trash heap of history.
see
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446826/supreme-court-church-state-case-trinity-lutheran
Charles,
Why do you call the clear, explicit language of the Missouri state constitution “verbiage?”
What contempt!
Is the US Constitution mere “verbiage”?
“Verbiage” is just a synonym for “wording”. I use the term neutrally, and without prejudice. and yes, the US constitution contains “verbiage” as well.
I only hold bigotry in contempt.
From Dictionary.com :
noun
1.
overabundance or superfluity of words, as in writing or speech; wordiness; verbosity.
2.
manner or style of expressing something in words; wording:
a manual of official verbiage.
Charles,
The Missouri Constitution is not an overabundance of words nor is it superfluous.
You don’t agree with the amendment.
Apparently you are not a strict constructionist or an originalist.
The language is clear. No money for religious institutions. Period.
The government provides money to religious institutions, to provide for secular purposes.
Example: People can use food stamps (SNAP), at food pantries run by churches.
States give money to faith-based NGO’s to run shelters for the homeless, and battered women.
Municipalities provide fire and police protection to church buildings, even though these properties are (generally) not taxed.
In response, it is perhaps time to consider that all religious institutions be taxed on all but their charitable works .
Then I demand all educational institutions be taxed as well.
Please define “all educational institutions. TIA, Duane
Show me an educational institution that makes a profit and you can tax its income .
On second thought you better not because they are not Public Schools, nor Public Universities . Nor are they not for profit Private Universities .
So tax private for profit institutions all you want.
How about religious institutions PAYING their fair share of TAXES! I find it reprehensible that churches don’t ANY pay taxes.
Amen, Sister Yvonne!!
Tangential topic- Ohio’s Phillis has a post at Plunderbund that highlights Diane Ravitch’s “A history lesson on the Blaine Amendment”.
Plunderbund exposes the oligarch-owned media’s lies and deceits by omission.
“. . . or voted third party because Hillary was “just as bad as Trump.”
Ummm. . . . That is not the reason I voted third party. I doubt that very many of those of us who voted third party voted that way for that reason. We voted for the person and party with the platform we most agreed with.
Don’t blame us for the disgustingly horrendous campaign by Clinton. It’s her fault for blowing the campaign to arguably the worse candidate to come along. And the top Dimocraps appear to have not learned a single lesson from that defeat
Hillary in 2020 or Chelsea, why not , Hillary for President and Chelsea for vp. Now there is a thought. I don’t often find myself in agreement with Andrew Sullivan
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/why-do-democrats-feel-sorry-for-hillary-clinton.html
The Clinton gang needs to fall by the wayside.
Hillary, or Chelsea in 2020?
If I wasn’t confident it will never happen, I’d ask you to just kill me now.
Duane, I don’t care how horrible a campaign Clinton ran, it does not negate what Diane wrote. Our system gives us a binary choice when it comes to winning (or losing) political campaigns.
However when the choice is seen as no choice by the people who count(not you or I) ,we lose . Clinton did not lose because Duane voted for Stein .
She lost because voters across the once solid blue Mid West who voted for HOPEY CHANGEY twice stayed home or bought into the demagoguery of Trump. As a good read in Aternet said this morning
Trump brought race front and center as an answer for their economic distress. That was in contrast to 8 years of neglect with a promise of more of the same.
And Duane is correct they “have not learned a single lesson from that defeat” They are still chasing affluent Republicans in Georgia and ignoring blue collar workers in Iowa . Spending 8 million on the Ossoff race in Georgia, that did not move one inch from the result in National election. While they spent 00. 0001 on Thompson in Iowa . who moved the needle 20 points with no
As I listened to Ossof in interviews, stunningly I shut the TV asking what was his message. As I listened to his concession speech last night (yes concession) I was again struck by the similarity to the DNC.
Timed like theater to come in before the bad news arrived and short on substance. As the pundits all said he sounds like Obama.
GregB, You choose to see our system as a binary choice one. I don’t. Until those who choose to see binary choice understand it is up to them to help change that system by working for and voting a third party, everything will stay the same-two thoroughly corrupt parties who don’t give a damn about the “little guy”, only about themselves and their rich and megarich backers/donors/controllers.
Diane’s statement is not accurate and that was what I was trying to convey. I know of no third party voter who voted for their candidate because of Hillary being “just as bad as Trump”.
Duane,
You disagree but that doesn’t make my statement inaccurate.
Jill Stein siphoned off 1,000,000 votes. For what purpose? So Trump could choose the next Supreme Court justice, maybe 2 or 3.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Diane, as what you wrote “voted third party because Hillary was “just as bad as Trump.” just isn’t true/accurate for the vast majority of third party voters. Now would those who voted for Stein have voted for either of the two main stream candidate and in what proportion I don’t know, but to assume that those votes would have all gone to Clinton and changed the outcome is a mighty leap of the imagination. As I’ve not seen how those Stein votes were distributed in the various states were a few thousand votes might have switched the state electoral college votes from the Salmon Swamp Monster to Clinton.
I stand by my original statement that yours is not accurate.
dianeravitch
I voted for Clinton . That said she lost Pennsylvania with a greater margin than Stein siphoned off. So even if you put Wisconsin and Michigan in the Clinton column she still lost by 10 electoral votes .
In Florida and North Carolina she lost again by greater than the vote for Stein .But we are leaving out Johnson who far out polled Stein and I would bet the libertarian vote would have broken Republican in every state. Smoking pot no longer makes you a liberal .
Simply a vote for Stein may have been foolish but it was irrelevant.
Clinton was god awful on policy because no one believed her she was for every issue before she was against it. Never wanted to be pinned down . Awful as a campaigner as well. Just think of where you met her this past summer . Worse yet the Democrats have not learned . As a piece in the Guardian said this morning, they are still chasing suburban whites having discarded the white working class. That is exactly what Clinton did her whole campaign was aimed at capturing suburban Republicans .
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/democratic-party-undermining-bernie-sanders-style-candidates
The DEMS have no clue that they are their own HUBRIS. They are too busy patting licking their wounds and being just plain obtuse. The DEMS also supported charters, vouchers, and were responsible for this mess we have in public education. Started with Reagan, got totally ramped up with the Billaries. The DEMS sold out the soul of the Democratic Party.
At the risk of sounding like racist bigot, wait, just wait, until DeVos hears that taxpayer dollars are going to religious schools not of her liking. Just wait.
ouch
The second-largest chain of charter schools in the USA, is run by an Islamist, Muhammed Fethullah Gulen. See
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/islamist-running-140-tax-funded-charter-schools-in-u-s/
Tax dollars are flowing in rivers, to all types of religiously-operated schools. Including a school run by Wiccans. See
http://www.wftacademyofpaganstudies.org/
I have yet to hear any complaints, from the Dept of Education.
Separation of church and state has always been the ideal, since the days that the new country rejected the idea that taxes should not be levied on the state to build churches as they were in Europe. We already have voucher programs that allow students to attend religious schools, despite this ideal. Will this case change that?
Roy you wrote: “Separation of church and state has always been the ideal,” …. Perhaps in your mind but not mine. There is no constitutional basis for your ideal. If students attend a school with academic non-religious morning classes, to fund classes for those students is constitutionally OK. No matter what type of school it is. States can likely impose restrictions if they desire but the US Constitution has zero to do with those restrictions.
“If students attend a school with academic non-religious morning classes, to fund classes for those students is constitutionally OK”
I am sure in your fantasy that is what happens . Reality is your religious Madrasas can not separate religion from education. They never have and never will . The inherent message is separation. The reason for attendance is separation., both religiously and racially. Parents in middle class Queens NY in the 50s were not sending their children to Catholic Madrassas to avoid some of the best public schools in the state. They were sending them for a “catholic education”
Same holds true for Jews who sent their children to Yeshiva the Jewish version of the madrassa . The message is clear separation and
that was the inherent message of the separation clause, that government shall not assist in that effort.
Before the constitution, religious freedom for American Catholics was guarenteed in the acts of toleration in the Maryland Colony. In other colonies, taxes supported the Anglican Church. This was the ideal. Whether it made it into the constitution or not, it was the ideal many people voiced, both then and now. My ideal is simple. My taxes should not have to support your religion or vice versa. Whether the constitution actually speaks to this has been the subject of discussion.
Ideals may not be constitutional, but they are someone’s vision. Our shared visions become law in our system, so that one idea does not get to dominate another without some agreement. Naturally, this is not a perfect system, but our dialogue brings us closer to that ideal. It is this ideal that lays the foundation for our constitution, but I am not aware of its exact articulation in the document itself.
The difficulty in amending the constitution is supposed to make that document both revolutionary and conserving of laws. So far it has served well, but there are those whose rights under the constitution have been ignored because they were powerless. The Ponca Indians come to mind. The Nesei. Our perseverance in the quest for real freedom depends upon the minority being protected from a tyranny imposed by a majority. Modern issues such as the right of privacy follow older issues such as the right to be free of chattel slavery. This is a messy process.
Separation of church from state, has never been a (stated) ideal. The 1st amendment provides for two concepts:
1) NO establishment of religion. The public purse will NOT pay for construction of church buildings, paying salaries to pastors/priests,etc.
2) Free exercise of religion.
The result of the 1st amendment, has been that church and state can flourish separately. Our nation has a whole “rainbow of faiths”, with Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, all “doing their thing”, freely.
The “Trinity v. Pauley” case, has little bearing on the current state systems which provide school choice/vouchers to parents. The constitutionality of providing choices to parents to receive educational (and other) services from NGO’s (including religiously operated schools) has been settled for over 15 years. This case will most likely, have no effect on the issue of school choice/vouchers.
This just in from “The Conversation” an online magazine: (commons copyright)
‘Public goods’ made America great and can do so again April 18, 2017 9.09pm EDT
“All Americans are lucky to live in a country brimming with public resources that everyone can share.
“Many are provided by government and funded with our tax dollars, such as the highways that crisscross the country, the 84 million acres of national parks and the roughly 100,000 public schools that give all children access to education.
“Others come from nature, like mountains, lakes and rivers, which also depend on a reliable government and meaningful regulations to preserve and protect them.
“While the collective value of these “public goods” is probably incalculable, the economic impact of schools, clean air and vast highways has been significant. In fact, I would argue that public goods are what have made America great.
“Unfortunately, our stock of public goods has been declining for half a century, particularly those that require the government’s purse strings. President Trump’s proposed budget would make things even worse by cutting, among many other things, funding for national parks, the cleanup of the Great Lakes and efforts to minimize climate change.
“So if Trump is serious about making America as great as it can be, investing in our public goods – as well as those equally vital ones we share with other nations – would be a good place to start.
Nonexcludable and nonrivalrous
“The formal definition of a public good is that it’s something that is nonexcludable and nonrivalrous. That’s a fancy way of saying that everyone can take advantage of it and that one person’s use doesn’t reduce its availability to others.
“Setting aside for a moment natural public goods, the ones provided by the government have been on the decline. U.S. public capital investment, net of depreciation, fell to just 0.4 percent of GDP in 2014 from 1.7 percent in 2007 and about 3 percent in the 1960s.”
The article goes on to give a history of public goods. See more of the article at link:
:https://theconversation.com/public-goods-made-america-great-and-can-do-so-again-74421?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2018%202017%20-%2072155468&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2018%202017%20-%2072155468+Version+A+CID_a128b4a3a9f1d1cd0d7c4a35e62e7026&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Public%20goods%20made%20America%20great%20and%20can%20do%20so%20again
Thanks for the link. Excellent discussion of “public” or the common good!
Duane: Among other things, I think the article helps answer the question: “Why do we think privatizers and the oligarchs are shooting themselves in the foot.” Two words from the article: “nonexcludable” and “non-rivalrous.”
Yes, the “nonexcludable” and “non-rivalrous” is an excellent description of public goods.
Duane: Yes–in oligarch-speak, public schools are “advantaged” because they don’t have to compete on the same plane as private schools, e.g., they don’t have to make a profit (???). This would be true if the whole world were nothing but a marketplace rooted in capitalism as a singular political ideology. (Of course, it’s not.)
But if anything depicts “Trumpism” and Trump’s ignorance, that’s it. He and his children (e.g., ivanka and her brand) have no idea of the difference between public and governmental functions, and a competitive marketplace. All that emoluments stuff is for idiots.
They don’t “get it.” It’s not that competition and markets are bad things; it’s that they’re not the ONLY thing.
Hey! Hey! Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! democrats trying to claim a deal about Ossoff and his 48%………lots of outside money….including…..MAXIMUM FROM CALIBER CHARTER SCHOOL CHIEF…..democrats do not need another jerk to speak on behalf of Arne Duncan or some spineless Hillary type who does not want to talk about education at all. I might be wrong……anybody wanna correct me? Please…..it is too boring for the media to examine.
I called Rush Limbaugh. I said liberal greetings from a graduate of Mark Scully University in Cape Girardeau, a vietnam vet…..I talked about the money which went to ossoff in Georgia, and pointed out that charter schools were a part of it, and began explaining how bad a mistake Obama made bringing in Bill Gates and having arne Duncan…I probably talked 3 or 4 minutes.They took my number…..Rush wants to talk to me more at length on Friday. Snerdley has my number. I had a two hour wait to get on…in the last 15 minutes.
I don’t know anything about Ossoff on education.
Bingo. That has been the democrat policy towards teachers. Say nothing, offend no one, and count on them to show up in big numbers because a huge percentage feels they have no choice. Silence is lousy.
….what can you tell us about Alisha Kramer, the bright young lady who has been dating jon Ossoff for 12 years. You can start with an article about her from the Gates foundation.Impatient Optimists.
So now it is the fault of those of us who wanted a different person in office…those of us who originally did not want Hillary but also did not want a Republican. Many of us did end up voting for Hillary because Bernie dif not won the nominayoon for many reasons….maybe it is the fault of those who could not give up Hillary and did not Vote for the one man who would have beaten Trump. Bernie…..stop throwong blame political it is what it is….if there is a way to gight this maybe you sjould start there instead of placing blame as you did at the begining of tjis article. Blame shaming gets no one anywhere fsst.
So now it is the fault of those of us who wanted a different person in office…those of us who originally did not want Hillary but also did not want a Republican. Many of us did end up voting for Hillary because Bernie dif not won the nomination for many reasons….maybe it is the fault of those who could not give up Hillary and did not Vote for the one man who would have beaten Trump. Bernie…..stop throwing blame political it is what it is….if there is a way to fight this maybe you sjould start there instead of placing blame as you did at the begining of tjis article. Blame shaming gets no one anywhere fsst.