Government schools should be constitutionally banned
rex
in a new proposed constitutional amendment. Under the proposal, the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution should state: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nor suppressing
such through an establishment of religion or education."
The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of
church and state. And for the same ideological reasons.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, most people received private
educations, and government schools, if they existed at all, were rare and
did not predominate as they do today.
If the authors of the Constitution had foreseen the government's modern
education monstrosity then the authors would have explicitly banned
government schools just as they banned government churches in the First
Amendment.
An attorney in Florida launched the amendment movement after filing a
motion in federal court to dismiss drug charges on the grounds that
defendants cannot receive fair trials in drug cases because jurors were
educated in government schools and cannot be impartial. The motion argues
that government schools are unconstitutional, and that the First Amendment
should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as religious
establishments. The motion is available at http://rexcurry.net.
The motion in federal court argues that defendants do not receive fair
trials because government schools propagandize jurors to do as the
government says. More specifically, government schools tell jurors to
support vice laws against peaceful adults, and keep jurors ignorant of jury
nullification and the ways in which jurors can reject bad laws that violate
individual rights.
According to a recent web search, http://rexcurry.net is the first and
only website to argue that government schools are unconstitutional and that
the First Amendment should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as
religious establishments. The web search looked for variations on the
phrase "establishment of religion or education." A web search also reveals
that rexcurry.net originated the phrase "The separation of school and state
is as important as the separation of church and state."
(For more ideas on liberty and libertarianism see http://members.ij.net/rex
and http://rexcurry.net from Rex Curry at re...@ij.net or
ecu...@interaccess.net or rexa...@hotmail.com).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Brandon
"rex" <re...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:3fa11efa$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
[snip]
> According to a recent web search, http://rexcurry.net is the first and
> only website to argue that government schools are unconstitutional and
that
> the First Amendment should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as
> religious establishments. The web search looked for variations on the
> phrase "establishment of religion or education." A web search also
reveals
> that rexcurry.net originated the phrase "The separation of school and
state
> is as important as the separation of church and state."
If you would include Google Groups, you'll find that this is not a new idea.
Anyway, it would be more accurate to argue that FEDERAL involvement in
education is unconstitutional. My position is that the Constitution does
not give Congress the authority to enact laws regarding education, as all
comprehensive education inherently inculcates a worldview and therefore is
religious. Education issues ought to be dealt with on the State and local
levels.
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
CR
> Government schools would be prohibited, as well as government churches,
> in a new proposed constitutional amendment. Under the proposal, the First
> Amendment of the United States Constitution should state: "Congress shall
> make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the
> speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
> and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nor suppressing
> such through an establishment of religion or education."
Does this apply to state schools? I'm all for getting rid of
government schools, but it should be done at the state level. It's a
bad idea to keep concentrating more power at the federal level. If
this just eliminates the Dept of Ed then I'm all for it.
core_dump
> Government schools would be prohibited, as well as government
> churches,
> in a new proposed constitutional amendment. Under the proposal, the
So you just read my opinion above, agreeing with a common libertarian
belief, and say that the idea originated from YOUR website?
--
-core_dump
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/M/CC d- s-:+ a--- C+++ UL+ P L++++ E--- W++(--) N+++ o? K? w(--)
O? M-(--) V? PS+(---) PE(++) Y+ PGP- t+ 5? X+ R tv b+ DI+ D+(---) G e h!
r-- z--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
rex
> If you would include Google Groups, you'll find that this is not a new idea.
>
> Anyway, it would be more accurate to argue that FEDERAL involvement in
> education is unconstitutional. My position is that the Constitution does
> not give Congress the authority to enact laws regarding education, as all
> comprehensive education inherently inculcates a worldview and therefore is
> religious. Education issues ought to be dealt with on the State and local
> levels.
Thanks for your kind comments. You have a nice website.
I thought that I did include Google Groups, and although the idea that
government schools are unconstitutional has been raised a few times
(so few that I found the number sadly small in a philsophical sense),
I didn't see any proposal to alter the First Amendment, nor any use of
the phrase "The separation of school and state is as important as the
separation of church and state." (which I also found sad in a
philsophical sense - I was almost hoping that I had not originated the
phrase, and that someone else said it a long time ago). If you found
other results than those stated above please direct me to them as I
would greatly appreciate the opporunity to work with like minded
people.
I appreciate your arguement that FEDERAL involvement in
education is unconstitutional. However, I continue with the church
analogy, in that I argue that State and local levels should not build
schools just as they should not build churches (and the constitution
is interpreted to prevent state and local levels from building
churches, as it should prevent the building of schools and for the
same ideological reasons). In a way that view of yours, which is very
popular, may very well explain the fascinating exceptions to my google
searches described above. Your view is so popular that it probably
explains why I didn't see any proposal to alter the First Amendment,
nor any use of the phrase "The separation of school and state is as
important as the separation of church and state."
Thank you again, and I appreciate your thoughts.
Wayne
>"Brandon" <go...@website.insig.foremail> wrote in message news:<bnrn7...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>> If you would include Google Groups, you'll find that this is not a new idea.
>>
>> Anyway, it would be more accurate to argue that FEDERAL involvement in
>> education is unconstitutional. My position is that the Constitution does
>> not give Congress the authority to enact laws regarding education, as all
>> comprehensive education inherently inculcates a worldview and therefore is
>> religious. Education issues ought to be dealt with on the State and local
>> levels.
>
>Thanks for your kind comments. You have a nice website.
>
>I thought that I did include Google Groups, and although the idea that
>government schools are unconstitutional has been raised a few times
>(so few that I found the number sadly small in a philsophical sense),
>I didn't see any proposal to alter the First Amendment, nor any use of
>the phrase "The separation of school and state is as important as the
>separation of church and state." (which I also found sad in a
>philsophical sense - I was almost hoping that I had not originated the
>phrase, and that someone else said it a long time ago). If you found
>other results than those stated above please direct me to them as I
>would greatly appreciate the opporunity to work with like minded
>people.
Like-minded people would be The Alliance for the Separation of School
and State found at:
http://www.sepschool.org
I would think that the phrase, "separation of school and state", being
such an obvious play on the phrase "separation of church and state"
certainly conveys the same meaning as your turn of words. And the
SepSchool people have been at it for quite a few years since I
remember endorsing their proclaimation back in 1996 ----
http://www.sepschool.org/endorsements.html
The Alliance for the Separation of School and State was founded in
1994.
Some quotes from the SepSchool site that show "some folks who seem
quite a bit less enthused about political control of schooling, or at
least of its indoctrination or conformity effects":
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson (1777)
"I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson (1800)
"State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be
exactly alike one another; ... in proportion as it is efficient and
successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a
natural tendency to one over the body." John Stuart Mill (1859)
"Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is
found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to
insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery."
Benjamin Disraeli (1874)
"What is the task of higher education? To make a man into a machine.
What are the means employed? He is taught how to suffer being bored."
F. W. Nietzsche (1889)
"We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights
of conscience in the education of children." Democrat National
Platform (1892)
"[T]he result has been school systems that treat children as units to
be processed into particular shapes and dropped into slots roughly
congruent with the status of their parents." Michael Katz (1968)
"The search for the one best system has ill-served the pluralistic
character of American society... [bureaucratization] has often
perpetuated positions and outworn practices rather than serving the
clients, the children to be taught." David Tyack (1974)
"[The schools reject] the idea of education as the acquisition of
knowledge and skills [and instead] regard the fundamental task in
education as therapy." Samuel Hayakawa (1978)
"If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education,
advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition
subsidies." Milton Friedman (nd)
"The first goal and primary function of the U.S. public school is not
to educate good people, but good citizens. It is the function which we
call in enemy nations 'state indoctrination.'" Jonathan Kozol (1990)
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
........................................................
"I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but I would
prefer that to their being educated by the state." ---Max Victor Belz
rex
> "rex" <re...@ij.net> wrote in news:3fa11efa$1...@corp.newsgroups.com:
> > Government schools would be prohibited, as well as government
> > churches,
> > in a new proposed constitutional amendment. Under the proposal, the
>
> So you just read my opinion above, agreeing with a common libertarian
> belief, and say that the idea originated from YOUR website?
what opinion did you write above? Perhaps there is cross-posting
elsewhere of yours that I did not see.
So far, although the idea that government schools are unconstitutional
has been raised a few times in google groups (so few that I found the
number sadly small in a philsophical sense), I am proud that mine is
the only proposal I have seen so far to to alter the First Amendment
(or that the 1st would have done so with foresight), nor any use of
the phrase "The separation of school and state is as important as the
separation of church and state." (which I also found sad in a
philsophical sense - I was almost hoping that I had not originated the
phrase, and that someone else said it a long time ago). I am aware
of the "separation of school and state alliance" and that's a great
organization. Even so, it is interesting that they also do not broach
the idea of amending the constitution, nor the very simple phrase
"The separation of school and state is as important as the separation
of church and state."
I can think of some reasons why the SSSA does not specifically broach
my points. If you found other results than those stated above please
direct me to them as I would greatly appreciate the opporunity to work
with any other like minded people. In fact, oddly enough, no one in
this thread has specifically agreed with altering the 1st amendment,
and so far a couple seem to just want the feds out of education. That
may explain the points I made above about the lack of the
phrases/proposals.
Info Junkie
"snip"
> According to a recent web search, http://rexcurry.net is the first and
>only website to argue that government schools are unconstitutional and that
>the First Amendment should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as
>religious establishments. The web search looked for variations on the
>phrase "establishment of religion or education." A web search also reveals
>that rexcurry.net originated the phrase "The separation of school and state
>is as important as the separation of church and state."
While you website has some, uh, interesting ideas, let me say that wrt
government schools, I agree that at the federal, not state level, no federal
taxpayer monies should be allocated to the public school system within any
state.
However, let me further point out that your concept for a constitutional
amendment is in error. As I understand your premise, such federal funding is
actually constitutional, but should be explictly made unconstitutional as it
should fall under the current ideaology as does religion under Amendment I.
Michael A. Clem
>In fact, oddly enough, no one in
>this thread has specifically agreed with altering the 1st amendment,
>and so far a couple seem to just want the feds out of education. That
>may explain the points I made above about the lack of the
>phrases/proposals.
>
>
Well, for one thing, it would be very difficult to get a new amendment
passed, especially in today's economic climate. I try to put a limit on
the number of hopeless causes I take up...
Brandon Berg
> So far, although the idea that government schools are unconstitutional
> has been raised a few times in google groups (so few that I found the
> number sadly small in a philsophical sense), I am proud that mine is
> the only proposal I have seen so far to to alter the First Amendment
> (or that the 1st would have done so with foresight), nor any use of
> the phrase "The separation of school and state is as important as the
> separation of church and state."
"A supporter of school choice to the point of recommending a constitutional
amendment guaranteeing it, [Stephen Arons] has suggested that the separation
of school and state is far more important than separation of church and
state."
http://www.schoolreport.com/schoolreport/articles/separation_03_03.htm
rex
One reason that it is fascinating is that it caused me to do searches
for the following phrases: The separation of school and state is as
important as the separation of church and state, the separation of school
and state is more important than the separation of church and state, the
separation of school and state is much more important than the separation of
church and state, the separation of school and state is far more important
than the separation of church and state.
Depending on the phrase I found either links to me or one or two other
instances of use. Therefore, after making this post and adding to my
website http://rexcurry.net, I am proud to announce that a recent websearch
of the internet and newsgroups indicates that rexcurry.net is either the
first or second site to coin or use one or more of the phrases above.
And I greatly appreciate your calling my attention to the proposed
constitutional amendment. It is unfortunate that the proposal is shockingly
wrongheaded and the complete opposite of my proposal. My proposal is to
actually "separate school and state" by adding the word "education" next to
"religion" in the First Amendment. The other proposal, oddly couched in the
concept of the "separation of school and state," does not want to add
"education" next to "religion," but lays the groundwork for a continuation
of the current school wars by including the provision that every child would
receive government funding for his education. Although it is presented
simply as a possible solution, it is a solution that would destroy
non-government schools, and massively expand socialism and government
spending and control.
Today, the government owns and operates most schools and there is
constant political debate about how the government should handle myriad
non-educational issues within the schools. Imagine if the government owned
and operated most churches and there was constant political debate about how
the government should handle myriad non-religious issues within government
churches (dress codes, cell phones, drug testing, sex ed, discrimination,
etc). Would the media and the citizenry advocate that the issues be solved
by privatizing the churches, removing government from the churches, and
championing the separation of church and state? Apparently not. If the
popular reasoning regarding schools is followed, the media and citizenry
would merely advocate that socialized churches adopt various policies that
are the most "popular" or considered to be the most "reasonable." Other
people, instead of creating the First Amendment, would instead advocate a
voucher program where every child would receive government funding for his
church. The same disaster would result. In other words,
antidisestablishmentarianism would cause the media and citizenry to miss the
unsolvable conflict between liberty and government churches, just as they
now miss the same conflict with government schools.
The failure to understand the difference between privatizing government
schools and merely "fine tuning" socialized schools is a fundamental failure
to understand freedom. A cynic would say that the misunderstanding is
another example of a tendentious failure of government schools to educate
people (the very people who are debating the issues). Thanks to government
schools, socialism has become the state religion and everyone seems to miss
the key libertarian issue completely.
Many people have been mistreated and segregated by government schools.
They have constantly struggled to correct government schools. Imagine if
everyone who had been mistreated or segregated by government schools had
instead advocated the separation of school and state, and had withdrawn from
government schools, and had switched to private schools or had formed their
own private schools. They would have done better than they have done by
staying in government schools. They would have academically surpassed the
people they left behind in public schools. They would have enjoyed true
freedom, including true religious freedom, even in their schools. Their
actions would have been much more historical, revolutionary and inspiring
than the constant struggle to correct government schools. It would have been
a story as historical, revolutionary and inspiring as was the separation of
church and state, and the end of government churches.
It is not too late. And It is not too late for the media and the
citizenry to wise up and fight to for the separation of school and state.
Thank you for directing my attention to that link.
"Brandon Berg" <bb...@cesmail.net> wrote in message
news:ANwob.52545$mZ5.317021@attbi_s54...
rex
news:3fa2...@news.vigoris.net...
Well, you don't have to "take up" the cause, you can simply verbalize it and
verbally support it when the subject of schools arises in conversation. If
it is a "hopeless cause" then it will always be so if no one even begins the
process of broaching the subject. If our country had government churches
and I originated the idea of the first amendment, I am certain people would
write in to tell me it was a hopeless cause. Now, that is what I get for
the same idea applied to schools.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:| A federal court has been asked to dismiss drug charges on the grounds
>:|that defendants cannot receive fair trials in drug cases because jurors were
>:|educated in government schools and cannot be impartial. The motion argues
>:|that government schools are unconstitutional, and that the First Amendment
>:|should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as religious
>:|establishments. The motion is available at http://rexcurry.net.
>:| The motion in federal court argues that defendants do not receive fair
>:|trials because government schools propagandize jurors to do as the
>:|government says. More specifically, government schools tell jurors to
>:|support vice laws against peaceful adults, and keep jurors ignorant of jury
>:|nullification and the ways in which jurors can reject bad laws that violate
>:|individual rights.
>:| When the U.S. Constitution was written, most people received private
>:|educations, and government schools, if they existed at all, were rare and
>:|did not predominate as they do today.
>:| If the authors of the Constitution had foreseen the government's modern
>:|education monstrosity then the authors would have explicitly banned
>:|government schools just as they banned government churches in the First
>:|Amendment.
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
#1
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.atheism
Subject: edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:44:26 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nocfbtcbrfo9aaecg0pdf6r4ie3a4df6ul%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=socfbtk6h334p28lm2aii0jt24tt3chta0%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3vcfbtsljmeek2qcm383kke4j8vj7se94j%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=frhhbt42tqjjdo4sv20ei6urjij5lpis2s%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7mhhbtc0l7hck7g66g745cnbsl368r96qr%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hhhbt0fujrmop7mh730ilddh8131dd1s6%404ax.com&output=gplain
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9shhbto5pf9pcpbi6bu5v1243605nqiiab%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2qhhbt4iguic35ar3oklais4aqb0c5q1hu%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=felhbt85trl40j1ih8u3pr8lgb0n3o926c%404ax.com&output=gplain
*****************************************
R. FREEMAN BUTTS
#1
Subject: religion/education/taxes/early America
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:06:45 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kgafbtk11st0c1k23iho575mg5sa94c3l9%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ngafbtougmt58uuai57qpt0guiv93k1gn5%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qgafbt8dduj6sq5dt7bmk5cm6i4dm8aqup%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sgafbtc3v817rohpdhj4kmai7k2n3joq9b%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vgafbts092n46vq3f2cc6vbq8f78tgbe70%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1hafbt0cuhno58j7u9vpcuape484a13bgi%404ax.com&output=gplain
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4hafbto1mpqjkrep27kmqrqk3ics9v8rm6%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hafbt0tts24bp5n32j8avujet2rdjf50o%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hafbt4rsugsud0vr9tcnh12au336mvl49%404ax.com&output=gplain
#10
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bhafbtc0pbvpseo1f9rlfc0buau5gn5qvv%404ax.com&output=gplain
#11
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lhafbt8ia91amju98poe52a609lnaj4che%404ax.com&output=g
*****************************************
Historical Data Against "Vouchers"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouchist.htm
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
Study Guide for Vouchers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd4.htm
*****************************************
Just a few of those favoring common schools or public education:
Thomas Jefferson
79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw1.htm
80. A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and
Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for Its Support (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw2.htm
81. A Bill for Establishing a Public Library (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw3.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
Geo Washington
James Madison
1786
BENJAMIN RUSH: On the Need for General Education
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
1787
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
1788
Benjamin Rush: PLAN OF A FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
1790
Noah Webster: THE EDUCATION OF THE YOUTH OF AMERICA
1796
The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel Harrison Smith.
George Washington: A National University. December 7, 1796
1801
Fisher Ames: School Books
rex
end government schools.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:| A federal court has been asked to dismiss drug charges on the grounds
>:|that defendants cannot receive fair trials in drug cases because jurors were
>:|educated in government schools and cannot be impartial. The motion argues
>:|that government schools are unconstitutional, and that the First Amendment
>:|should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as religious
>:|establishments. The motion is available at http://rexcurry.net.
>:| The motion in federal court argues that defendants do not receive fair
>:|trials because government schools propagandize jurors to do as the
>:|government says. More specifically, government schools tell jurors to
>:|support vice laws against peaceful adults, and keep jurors ignorant of jury
>:|nullification and the ways in which jurors can reject bad laws that violate
>:|individual rights.
>:| When the U.S. Constitution was written, most people received private
>:|educations, and government schools, if they existed at all, were rare and
>:|did not predominate as they do today.
>:| If the authors of the Constitution had foreseen the government's modern
>:|education monstrosity then the authors would have explicitly banned
>:|government schools just as they banned government churches in the First
>:|Amendment.
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Thanks for added proof of the failure of government schools and the need to
>:|end government schools.
LOL, no such proof was offered.
The problem with your theory is, the founders DID SEPARATE church and
state. They DID NOT SEPARATE school and state, in fact DID the exact
opposite See the Northwest ordinance.
See some of the original state constitutions.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|[crosspost removed]
The problem with your theory is as follows:
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE:
Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner,
shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious
sentiments, in the said territory.
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged.
****************************************
On July 13, 1787, while the Federal Convention was drafting the
Constitution in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress in New York' enacted
an ordinance to govern territory that the states had ceded to the national
government. This document, most often referred to today as the Northwest
Ordinance set the pattern for territorial governance and state making that
was ultimately applied to thirty-one of the fifty states.(8)
(8). See James A. Curry et al., Constitutional Government: The American
Experience 81 (1989); see also Carter, supra note 4,. at 22 (noting that
the pattern applied to the Northwest Territory also applied largely to the
Southwest Territory and to the territories of Mississippi. Orleans.
Louisiani-Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida); Eblen. supra note 5,
at 241 ("[I)ts provisions were to lay the foundation for the government of
the thirty-one public Lands states and Hawaii."). For the Southwest
Ordinance and other legislative progeny of the Northwest Ordinance, see
Frederick E. Hosen. Unfolding Westward in Treaty and Law: Land Documents in
United States History from the Appalachians to the Pacific, 1785-1934, a 45
(Southwest Ordinance) 59-80 (Mississippi Territorial Act), 84-.89 (Missouri
Territorial Act), 188-97 (Oregon Territorial Act), 197-203 (Minnesota
Territorial Act) (1988).
SOURCE:The Northwest Ordinance as a Constitutional Document, Denis P.
Duffey. Columbia Law Review, Vol 95, May 1995, No.4, p 929-30)
************************************
In this act, the First Congress adopted as its own the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, . . .
Northwest Territory Bill [HR-14] July 21, 1789
http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p10/p10_2.html
*****************************************
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and
Debates, 1774-1875
TUESDAY JULY 21. PREVIOUS SECTION ..
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793
TUESDAY JULY 21.
An engrossed bill to provide for the government of the territory Northwest
of the river Ohio was read the third time.
Resolved, That the said bill do pass, and that the title be, "An act to
provide for the government of the territory Northwest of the river Ohio."
Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said bill to the Senate,
and desire their concurrence.
On motion,
Resolved, That Mr. Partridge and Mr. White be a committee, jointly, with
any committee which the Senate shall appoint, to examine the enrolled bill,
entitled "An act for establishing an Executive Department, to be
denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs," after it shall be signed by
the Speaker of this House, and the President of the Senate, to present the
same to the President of the United States for Iris approbation.
Page 64 | Page image (you actually want the previous page, page 63)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:4:./temp/~ammem_ND2g::#0010063
*************************************
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
The founders DID SEPARATE church and state. They DID NOT SEPARATE school
and state, in fact DID the exact opposite See the Northwest ordinance.
See some of the original state constitutions.
*****************************************
Info Junkie
>"Brandon" <go...@website.insig.foremail> wrote:
>
>>:|[crosspost removed]
>>:|
>>:|"rex" <re...@ij.net> wrote in message
>>:|news:3fa11efa$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>>:|
>>:|[snip]
>>:|
>>:|> According to a recent web search, http://rexcurry.net is the first and
>>:|> only website to argue that government schools are unconstitutional and
>>:|that
>>:|> the First Amendment should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as
>>:|> religious establishments. The web search looked for variations on the
>>:|> phrase "establishment of religion or education." A web search also
>>:|reveals
>>:|> that rexcurry.net originated the phrase "The separation of school and
>>:|state
>>:|> is as important as the separation of church and state."
>>:|
>>:|If you would include Google Groups, you'll find that this is not a new idea.
>>:|
>>:|Anyway, it would be more accurate to argue that FEDERAL involvement in
>>:|education is unconstitutional. My position is that the Constitution does
>>:|not give Congress the authority to enact laws regarding education, as all
>>:|comprehensive education inherently inculcates a worldview and therefore is
>>:|religious. Education issues ought to be dealt with on the State and local
>>:|levels.
>
>The problem with your theory is as follows:
"snip" the same 'ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has foisted in these
ngs that equate to little more than spam.
The "theory" is from jailson alias "buckeye" that has been debunked time and
again. The facts have been provided previously in other threads.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Like-minded people would be The Alliance for the Separation of School
>:|and State found at:
>:|http://www.sepschool.org
>:|
>:|I would think that the phrase, "separation of school and state", being
>:|such an obvious play on the phrase "separation of church and state"
>:|certainly conveys the same meaning as your turn of words. And the
>:|SepSchool people have been at it for quite a few years since I
>:|remember endorsing their proclaimation back in 1996 ----
>:|http://www.sepschool.org/endorsements.html
>:|
>:|The Alliance for the Separation of School and State was founded in
>:|1994.
>:|
>:|Some quotes from the SepSchool site that show "some folks who seem
>:|quite a bit less enthused about political control of schooling, or at
>:|least of its indoctrination or conformity effects":
>:|
>:|"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
>:|of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>:|Thomas Jefferson (1777)
The above is taken out of context. Improperly cited as well.
Thomas Jefferson fully and completely supported common or public schooling
Thomas Jefferson
79. A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw1.htm
80. A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and
Mary, and Substituting More Certain Revenues for Its Support (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw2.htm
81. A Bill for Establishing a Public Library (1779)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefflaw3.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
service as the first president of the Washington, D.C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Another Jefferson Quote Debunked
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jefschl1.htm
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
>:|"I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
>:|form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson (1800)
The above is taken out of context and improperly cited as well. The above
refers to slavery.
>:|"State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be
Now for just a tiny bit of the other side of the coin:
Some others who supported public schooling:
Geo Washington
James Madison
1786
BENJAMIN RUSH: On the Need for General Education
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
1787
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
1788
Benjamin Rush: PLAN OF A FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
1790
Noah Webster: THE EDUCATION OF THE YOUTH OF AMERICA
1796
The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel Harrison Smith.
George Washington: A National University. December 7, 1796
1801
Fisher Ames: School Books
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|"snip" the same 'ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has foisted in these
>:|ngs that equate to little more than spam.
>:|
>:|The "theory" is from jailson alias "buckeye" that has been debunked time and
>:|again. The facts have been provided previously in other threads.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've danced this dance before and there is no need to do it again.
BTW. you haven't debunked any of the data I have provided except maybe in
your dreams.
Google seraches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
>>:|"snip" the same 'ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has foisted in these
>>:|ngs that equate to little more than spam.
>>:|
>>:|The "theory" is from jailson alias "buckeye" that has been debunked time and
>>:|again. The facts have been provided previously in other threads.
>
>Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
You've not proven it's "unsubstabntiated". Your "claim" that it is however,
is...
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
>claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
>irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
>the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
>responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
>considering
Previously provided. That you disagree with it is not "proof".
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[ as Homer@nospam said]
>Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
>truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
>that
>people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
Non sequitur as I've not written this.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[as Gray Shockley said:]
> (Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non sequitur as I've not written this.
>We've danced this dance before and there is no need to do it again.
Ask you like to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.".
Unfortunately for you, I've provided such proof, whereas you've provided (wrt
usage of federal taxpayer monies for education in all states) that which was
previously proven false or "skewed".
Yes, we've "danced" before, and you've run every time, by finishing your posts
with a long re-posting of the same diatribe that was previously addressed, while
you ignore questions and claim other posts to respond to, "claiming" you're
"leaving the reader to decide.".
Unfortunately, you believe you're the only one that should "lead", while
ignoring those that understand the "music" and the "steps" better than you.
>BTW. you haven't debunked any of the data I have provided except maybe in
>your dreams.
As you like to say, "Your unsubstantiated claim is noted."
Info Junkie
>Wayne <schi...@enter.net> wrote:
>
>>:|Like-minded people would be The Alliance for the Separation of School
>>:|and State found at:
>>:|http://www.sepschool.org
>>:|
>>:|I would think that the phrase, "separation of school and state", being
>>:|such an obvious play on the phrase "separation of church and state"
>>:|certainly conveys the same meaning as your turn of words. And the
>>:|SepSchool people have been at it for quite a few years since I
>>:|remember endorsing their proclaimation back in 1996 ----
>>:|http://www.sepschool.org/endorsements.html
>>:|
>>:|The Alliance for the Separation of School and State was founded in
>>:|1994.
>>:|
>>:|Some quotes from the SepSchool site that show "some folks who seem
>>:|quite a bit less enthused about political control of schooling, or at
>>:|least of its indoctrination or conformity effects":
>>:|
>>:|"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
>>:|of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>>:|Thomas Jefferson (1777)
>
>The above is taken out of context. Improperly cited as well.
>Thomas Jefferson fully and completely supported common or public schooling
Yes Thomas Jefferson did agree with public schooling...to be handled and
financed within the state's own laws. You've not shown Thomas Jefferson desired
usage of federal taxpayer monies to fund public schools in all states. Here is
where YOU take his beliefs "out of context" that you imply otherwise.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Yes Thomas Jefferson did agree with public schooling...to be handled and
>:|financed within the state's own laws.
It is a nice game you are playing, but the fact that you are playing a
gamer doesn't bode well for your position.
If it was really a strong position, you wouldn't have to play games.
Jefferson as most of the men of the period frequently wrote about their
states since much of what they wrote at the time was before we had a
nation under the Constitution.
That is your game, to much a lot of noise about the fact they were writing
about Virginia or Penna, etc.
However, that doesn't automatically transform to remaining a local issue as
the nation became a nation and expanded.
Not matter how much you try to devalue the Northwest Ordinance, the facts
are it established a method of public education, funding, etc and that
method involved local, state and Congress.
You have never effectively dealt with any of the following material:
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
#1
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.atheism
Subject: edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:44:26 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nocfbtcbrfo9aaecg0pdf6r4ie3a4df6ul%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=socfbtk6h334p28lm2aii0jt24tt3chta0%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3vcfbtsljmeek2qcm383kke4j8vj7se94j%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=frhhbt42tqjjdo4sv20ei6urjij5lpis2s%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7mhhbtc0l7hck7g66g745cnbsl368r96qr%404ax.com&output=gplain
********************************************************
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hhhbt0fujrmop7mh730ilddh8131dd1s6%404ax.com&output=gplain
Even before the federal constitution was ratified, the story
of the federal government's involvement with schools began with the
Ordinance of 1785, which was passed by the congress established under the
Articles of Confederation. The ordinance specified how property lines in
the western territory should "be measured with a chain ... plainly marked
by chaps on the trees, and exactly described on a plat, whereon shall be
noted ... all mines, salt-springs, salt-licks, and mill-seats." The
document stipulated that land should be divided into townships, each six
miles square and subdivided into 36 lots each a mile square. In
businesslike fashion, it established the terms of the deed between the
United States and citizens buying lands from the public domain. One clause
linked the congressional ordinance explicitly to schooling: "There shall be
reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public
schools, within the said township." The intention of the framers was that
the land would be sold to settlers and the income from the sales would be
used to support the school.
Two years later, the Confederation Congress passed the Ordinance of
1787. This measure went further than its predecessor by setting the rules
for governing the territory northwest of the Ohio River. The ordinance
stipulated a plan for a governor, general assembly, and courts for each
territory to be created from that immense wilderness. It established the
procedure whereby each might become a state. Between the existing states of
the Confederation and the new ones, the ordinance proclaimed a compact that
prohibited slavery and guaranteed religious freedom and basic legal rights
like those later embodied in the Bill of Rights. Laying down fundamental
conditions for building new states, the ordinance also included a sentence
asserting that "religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged."
During the first century of the new nation, Congress granted more
than 77 million acres of the public domain as an endowment for the support
of public schools. In times of pressing national debt, congressional
leaders were eager to sell the western lands owned by the federal
government; land speculators persuaded Congress to include subsidies for
schools as an inducement to attract settlers.
The tracts ceded to states for the support of public schools grew
steadily over the years. In 1841, Congress passed an act that granted
500,000 acres to eight states, later increased to make grants to a total of
nineteen states, to be used for "internal improvements." A majority of
these states devoted all or part of the income from these lands to the
schools. In 1848, Congress approved the policy of reserving two lots, 16
and 36, for the support of schools when it established the territorial
government of Oregon. In 1850, California was the first state to receive
both lots, amounting to 5.5 percent of the public domain in the state. The
desert states of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico-where much of the land had
little value-each received four sections per township for the support of
public schools.
The federal government also granted money, such as distributions of
surplus federal revenue and reimbursements for war expenses, to the states.
Though Congress rarely prescribed that such funds be used only for schools,
education constituted one of the largest expenses of state and local
governments, and so they used federal monies for this purpose. Moreover,
Congress awarded a certain percentage of proceeds from the sale of U.S.
lands within the borders of the new state; the amount ranged from 3 to 10
percent, with most states receiving 5 percent. Twelve states, all of them
west of the Mississippi except Wisconsin, decreed in their constitutions
that income from this fund should flow to the common school fund.
On the surface, the legal and constitutional framework of the new
nation gave federal authorities little say over the financing and
governance of public schools. In the beginning, writing constitutions in
the new territories came to regard the grants as fundamental to statehood.
Many of these leaders hoped that the federal largesse might one day provide
full support for the common schools. In some territories the income from
federal lands granted to the states and then leased or sold to settlers
constituted the only source of state funding. In nearly every state, the
availability of the land grants served to generate revenue for public
institutions.
The dark We of they story is that vast sums were lost through
corruption or mismanagement. States like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois found
it difficult to realize profits from the lands for use in establishing
public schools. Learning from experience, Congress and state constitutions
began to specify prices and conditions of sale for the lands sold to
support schools. The states created supposedly inviolate common school
funds to be allocated to local districts. To receive this money, local
educators were expected to comply with state regulations about the length
of the school term and teacher qualifications.
The gradual evolution toward state control of federal land grants
was more the result of pragmatic experience than the outcome of deliberate
educational policy. Partly because of a strong commitment to states' rights
in the period before the Civil War, Congress stopped short of trying to
control the management of education grants, even when states were abusing
the terms under which they received the grants. In Illinois, for example,
the legislature diverted the funds intended for schools to other purposes.
State officials refused to make the required reports to the U.S. Treasury.
In retaliation, the federal government refused to make payments. Congress
resolved the dispute by repealing the requirement that states make reports.
As years went by, state constitutions in the West became specific
about such bureaucratic matters. The educational provisions that regulated
land grants expanded along with other language controlling the
establishment of schools. Indirectly, the federal government provided
leverage to states for centralizing control over schools. By the end of the
nineteenth century, Congress itself began to set the terms for the sale of
lands to support schools in the enabling acts of new states. It went so far
as to require several new states-Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Washington-to establish free, non-sectarian public school systems as a
condition for admission to the union and receipt of the land grants.
After the mid-century, congressional grants became more generous
and controls over the disposition of land more strict. Citizens in the
northwestern states, profiting from the mistakes of governments to the
east, creatively conserved and used the funds from land sales for the
public good instead of private gain. In states west of the Mississippi,
roughly 10 percent of the school budgets came from the sale of public land
granted for school purposes. This was far less than a full subsidy of
public education, but it was also far from negligible.
The procedure of drafting a constitution and then gaining
congressional approval for statehood prompted the citizens of the
territories to think systematically about public schools. The act of
constructing a frame of government, and of recognizing the place of
education in that structure, gave leaders the opportunity to make choices
among the policies that had been tried in other states. The newer states
could borrow from the experiences of the older ones. In this way, citizens
shaped and reinterpreted a living constitutional tradition, embodied in the
federal and original state constitutions.
The organization of American education grew more complex as public
institutions and the society as a whole expanded in the nineteenth century.
Constitutional provisions on schools reflected this growing complexity. In
the earlier documents, idealistic preambles and brief treatments of federal
land grants seemed enough when settlers were building only log schools in
the wilds of the Midwest. By contrast, when territorial assemblies in the
sparsely populated far Northwest states created constitutions, they wrote
elaborate new bureaucratic structures into their educational provisions.
They were trying to reflect the best examples of institution-building in
their time.
Although more attuned to administrative detail than leaders in the
early years, these educational policy makers also continued to reflect the
ideology that had fueled nearly a century of effort to create common
schools as an essential feature of American government. In 1874, a group of
seventy seven college presidents,and city and state superintendents of
schools issued a statement that described this process of institutional
development:
As a consequence of the perpetual migration from the older sections
of the country to the unoccupied Territories, there are new states in all
degrees of formation, and their institutions present earlier phases of
realization of the distinctive type that are presented in the mature growth
of the system as it exists in the thickly-settled and older States. Thus
States are to be found with little or no provision for education, but they
are rudimentary forms of the American State, and are adopting, as rapidly
as immigration allows them to do so, the type of educational institutions
already defined as the result of American political and social ideas.
While the educational provisions of constitutions of the original
states changed but little, new states aspired to incorporate the most
up-to-date public school systems. They wanted to show themselves to be
enlightened and civilized as they joined the union of states. Accordingly,
they wrote more and more elaborate provisions for education into their
state constitutions.
They codified the institutional structures that had developed
through statutory law in the older states, such as state boards of
education, county and state superintendents, and teacher training
institutions. Turning against earlier traditions of religious instruction,
many prohibited sectarian instruction in public schools and any public aid
to schools affiliated with religious groups. Some constitutional
conventions in the South after the Civil War mandated compulsory school
attendance in their constitutions, even though their states had only
recently established a common school system. An expanding nation composed
of dozens of newly added states became a country in which the new states
could copy from the old and the old were challenged to innovate to match
the progress achieved by younger peers.
Like the land ordinances of the 1780s, state constitutions in the
nineteenth century became much more than documents designed to attract new
residents and win statehood. They were strategies for achieving organized
social life-a political system, a rule of law, a structure of governance,
and adequate financial incentives for creating institutions such as public
schools. Similar to the town and city plats of the developers, but for an
entire system of government, these documents promised that the state on the
periphery would one day match the ideal of statehood most admired by its
predecessors. Reflecting upon this process during the California
constitutional convention of 1849, a delegate quoted the view of Robert J.
Walker, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, who argued:
Each state is deeply interested in the welfare of every other; for the
representatives of the whole regulate by their votes the measures of the
Union, which must be the more happy and prosperous in proportion as its
councils are guided by more enlightened views, resulting from the more
universal diffusion of light, knowledge, and education.
In this process of forming new states, Congress played a subdued
role, setting the terms for territorial government, shaping the
requirements for admission in the enabling acts, approving the new
constitutions, then granting vast amounts of federal land to stimulate
improvements, including public schools, in the fledgling societies on the
frontier.
Nowhere is the perceived importance of schooling more Political
Ideology apparent than in the language used to describe it in state Public
Schooling constitutions. A striking feature of the educational clauses in
nineteenth-century state constitutions is their idealistic tone. With the
exception of language in the declarations of rights, no other sections
contained so much exhortation to virtue. None of the other parts of
government received such broad justifications phrased in the political
discourse of the eighteenth century. Sections on the legislative branch did
not extol the virtues of representative government, nor those on the
judiciary the glories of justice. Clauses on suffrage, militia,
corporations, revenue, and divisions of the executive branch were plain and
businesslike. In contrast, the high-flown justifications of the common
school declared public education to be a shared value. It was a fundamental
guarantee built into government. Like those other guarantees embedded in
the declarations of rights, it was a common good above the squabbles of
political party or sect.
. The Ohio constitution of 1802 reflected this belief by including a
provision for schooling in the declaration of rights itself. Such idealism
about education entered into the debates of constitutional conventions with
an intensity that often reconciled extreme political differences. To mark a
moment of concord between jousting Whigs and Democrats in the Illinois
constitutional convention of 1847, a delegate said, "As the soul rises into
immortality when the body falls into decay and perishes, so does the cause
of education rise in splendor and grandeur above all party schemes and
factions."
In ascribing such importance to public schooling, the framers of
state constitutions were consciously developing a connection between
education and democracy. A resonant political argument, this connection
went back to the rhetoric of the nation's founding fathers. "The business
of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our
country," wrote Benjamin Rush, a Pennsylvanian who signed the Declaration
of Independence and served as an articulate spokesman for republican ideas,
in 1786. "The form of government we have assumed," he continued, "has
created a new class of duties to every American." Rush thought it necessary
to establish "nurseries of wise and good men," a system of education from
common schools through colleges, to ensure the survival of the republic.
(Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986) p 148-155)
**********************************************
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9shhbto5pf9pcpbi6bu5v1243605nqiiab%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2qhhbt4iguic35ar3oklais4aqb0c5q1hu%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=felhbt85trl40j1ih8u3pr8lgb0n3o926c%404ax.com&output=gplain
*****************************************
The Federal government has been involved with education from the very
beginnign, get over it and move on.
You can claim it is unconstitutional all you want, however, your belly
aching doesn't count. Courts have upheld the constitutionality of such
involvement and they do count.
I recommend
Thomas Jefferson and the Education of a Citizen. Edited by James Gilreath
Library of Congress. Washington (1999)
Education and the Federal Government, A Historical Record.
(The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman
Butts,Greenwood Press, Publishers, Westport, Conn. (1974--Originally
published by The Beacon Press. Boston, 1950)
Public Education in America From Revolution to Reform R. Freeman Butts.
American Education, The colonial Experience, Laurence Cremin
American Presidents and Education, Maurice Berube
The great Education Debate, Washington and the Schools, Marcus Stickney
We've danced this dance before and there is no need to do it again.
BTW. you haven't debunked any of the data I have provided except maybe in
your dreams.
Google seraches using the following:
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
>>:|Yes Thomas Jefferson did agree with public schooling...to be handled and
>>:|financed within the state's own laws.
>
>It is a nice game you are playing, but the fact that you are playing a
>gamer doesn't bode well for your position.
Whether you feel it's a "game" is your opinion, but doesn't alter the facts of
the constitutionality of using federal taxpayer monies to fund public education
in all states. What the founders/framers said, the legislature they addressed or
what they wrote about,, is irrelevent as to what came out of the State
Conventions that ratified said document...which is the only body that "gave it
all the validity and authority which it possesses." (Letter to N.P. Trist,
December, 1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 211)(
Unfortunately for you, the "game" is up, and you've been found "wanting". You've
been shown shown your errors, much of which is made of fallacies and
half-truths. That you disbelieve or desire to "distort" the facts to your favor,
doesn't mean they are true. You've failed, time and again to show any enumerated
power that authorizes Congress to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public
education in all states. Too bad your too arrogant to admit it.
>If it was really a strong position, you wouldn't have to play games.
Strange, I'm not the one that uses fallacies of distraction, partial titles, or
sources to support my position, then attempt to discredit my own source as you
have done. That you can not even refute what has been provided you from the
State Convention themselves, which is the only body that "gave it all the
validity and authority which it possesses." (Letter to N.P. Trist, December,
1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 211), shows your desire to be "right", and invoke
fallacies of distraction rather than admit your in error. How pitiful you must
be that you need to resort to such tactics.
My "position" is in the facts themselves, and have been presented without the
need for such "games" as you play, such as attempting to "bury" those with whom
you disagree with the same 'ole baloney that's been shown in error time and
again. (and do so again in your post, which I've "snipped" below)
>Jefferson as most of the men of the period frequently wrote about their
>states since much of what they wrote at the time was before we had a
>nation under the Constitution.
In this we agree. Yet Jefferson among others, also wrote about the enumerated
powers delegated to Congress under the US Constitution, and the majority
rejected Hamilton's attempt to use the "implied powers" concept, as you
evidently favor as justification for using federal taxpayer monies to fund
public education in all states. It didn't "fly" under the founder and framers,
nor was it either stated nor implied as justification by the State Covention
delegates.
>That is your game, to much a lot of noise about the fact they were writing
>about Virginia or Penna, etc.
Yet that is what they addressed, their state, as the use of funds for national
issues were nether entrusted nor enumerated as a power to Congress wrt using
federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states. If you feel that
it's a "game", it is but your opinion, and little more.
>However, that doesn't automatically transform to remaining a local issue as
>the nation became a nation and expanded.
Unfortunately for you, all issues were to "remain a local issue". If they were
to be "transformed" to a "national issue", then you will attempt (without
falacies of course) to educate this NG as to the purpose of Article V of the US
Constitution, won't you?
That Article V has never been used to ratify, much less even propose such an
enumerated power to be entrusted to the federal government to authorize the use
of federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states is not in
question. Since it has never been an enumerated power, one must return to
constitutional law;
"An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and
limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written" -- Marbury vs. Madison
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for
any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional
law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would
be had the statute not been enacted." (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
Volume 16, Section 177)
"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the
debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative
character . . . [T]he legitimate meanings of the Instrument must be derived from
the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be . . . in the
sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions, where
it received all the authority which it possesses." Letter to Thomas Ritchie,
September 15, 1821 (Madison, 1865, III, page 228)
>Not matter how much you try to devalue the Northwest Ordinance, the facts
>are it established a method of public education, funding, etc and that
>method involved local, state and Congress.
There is NO evidence that the Northwest Ordinance is a legal instrument under
which the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to use federal
taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states. Another re-posting of
your usual voluminous diatribe does not change this fact.
>You have never effectively dealt with any of the following material:
"snip" ANOTHER re-posting of material that I've previously addressed, in-depth.
IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
"cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your credibility and
failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to admit it and
move on.
Bob LeChevalier
>Unfortunately for you, the "game" is up, and you've been found "wanting". You've
>been shown shown your errors, much of which is made of fallacies and
>half-truths. That you disbelieve or desire to "distort" the facts to your favor,
>doesn't mean they are true. You've failed, time and again to show any enumerated
>power that authorizes Congress to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public
>education in all states. Too bad your too arrogant to admit it.
Congress doesn't fund public education. Congress funds specific
programs which aid public education in certain arenas.
(If these programs were unconstitutional, someone would have
successfully challenged them by now. They haven't.)
>>Jefferson as most of the men of the period frequently wrote about their
>>states since much of what they wrote at the time was before we had a
>>nation under the Constitution.
>
>In this we agree. Yet Jefferson among others, also wrote about the enumerated
>powers delegated to Congress under the US Constitution, and the majority
>rejected Hamilton's attempt to use the "implied powers" concept, as you
>evidently favor as justification for using federal taxpayer monies to fund
>public education in all states. It didn't "fly" under the founder and framers,
>nor was it either stated nor implied as justification by the State Covention
>delegates.
Jefferson also felt that the Louisiana Purchase was probably not
within the Constitutional powers. He did it anyway. That territory
is and will be part of the United States for the indefinite future.
Live with it.
>IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
>"cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your credibility and
>failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to admit it and
>move on.
He doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does anyone else. You have
no credibility on this matter; he does.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@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
Brian Mason
violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect establish
atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
creatures). These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they cannot
be falsified and are simply held on faith.
In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e. cross,
ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote in message
news:3fa46b01...@news.ifx.net...
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>Unfortunately for you, the "game" is up, and you've been found "wanting". You've
>>been shown shown your errors, much of which is made of fallacies and
>>half-truths. That you disbelieve or desire to "distort" the facts to your favor,
>>doesn't mean they are true. You've failed, time and again to show any enumerated
>>power that authorizes Congress to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public
>>education in all states. Too bad your too arrogant to admit it.
>
>Congress doesn't fund public education. Congress funds specific
>programs which aid public education in certain arenas.
Downplay it all you want Bob, ti's still using federal taxpayer monies to fund
public education in all states. Whether it's "a" program or a number of specific
programs doesn't change that fact.
A quick check reveals 'US Department of Education currently
administers a budget of about $54 Billion per year.' ("give or take" 1-3
Billion).
Downplay it and "twist it" in whatever way makes you feel comfortable Bob, yet
a geat deal of these Billions spent on public education in all states uses
federal taxpayer monies, and whether it is done so through one or a number of
"specific" programs is irrelevent.
>(If these programs were unconstitutional, someone would have
>successfully challenged them by now. They haven't.)
That such programs "would have successfully (been) challenged" or even been
challenged at all on the economic not religious grounds is but conjecture on
your part. This issue wrt its constitutionality has been addressed in another
thread if you wish to re-read them.
>>>Jefferson as most of the men of the period frequently wrote about their
>>>states since much of what they wrote at the time was before we had a
>>>nation under the Constitution.
>>
>>In this we agree. Yet Jefferson among others, also wrote about the enumerated
>>powers delegated to Congress under the US Constitution, and the majority
>>rejected Hamilton's attempt to use the "implied powers" concept, as you
>>evidently favor as justification for using federal taxpayer monies to fund
>>public education in all states. It didn't "fly" under the founder and framers,
>>nor was it either stated nor implied as justification by the State Covention
>>delegates.
>
>Jefferson also felt that the Louisiana Purchase was probably not
>within the Constitutional powers. He did it anyway. That territory
>is and will be part of the United States for the indefinite future.
>Live with it.
This was addressed in another post. That you've failed to keep up with the
discussion is of no concern of mine.
>>IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
>>"cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your credibility and
>>failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to admit it and
>>move on.
>
>He doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does anyone else. You have
>no credibility on this matter; he does.
So you've been officially elected in this NG as spokesperson for jailson alias
"buckeye" and "anyone else" other than. yourself? Just based on that pompous
and arrogant attitude alone, I demand a "recall" : -)
Despite your "jumping in" to this thread, failure to keep up with that
previously posted in this and similar threads on the subject, while claiming
spokesmanship for those other than yourself shows you apparently rely on
conjecture and are hardly qualified to judge what is or is not credible.
Roger
news:3fa4b...@127.0.0.1...
> I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
> violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect establish
> atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
> over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
> creatures). These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they
cannot
> be falsified and are simply held on faith.
This is just dumb. Not teaching religion doesn't teach that there is no
religion any more than schools promote satanism because they don't say it's
bad.
I sure hope you don't try to teach logic.
>
> In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
cross,
> ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
Stupid.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:59:01 -0500, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|"snip" the same 'ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has foisted in these
>:|>>:|ngs that equate to little more than spam.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|The "theory" is from jailson alias "buckeye" that has been debunked time and
>:|>>:|again. The facts have been provided previously in other threads.
>:|>
>:|>Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|
>:|You've not proven it's "unsubstabntiated". Your "claim" that it is however,
>:|is...
Let the readers decide
>:|>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
>:|>claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
>:|>irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
>:|>the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
>:|>responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
>:|>considering
>:|
>:|Previously provided. That you disagree with it is not "proof".
What I provide is mostly data from scholars, etc. not my opinion.
Gee, that must have been over your head.
>:|>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>[ as Homer@nospam said]
>:|>Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
>:|>truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
>:|>that
>:|>people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
>:|
>:|Non sequitur as I've not written this.
>:|
>:|>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>[as Gray Shockley said:]
>:|> (Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
>:|>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|Non sequitur as I've not written this.
Ho hum, your comment is irrelevant and it does apply to you.
>:|>We've danced this dance before and there is no need to do it again.
>:|
>:|Ask you like to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.".
>:|Unfortunately for you, I've provided such proof, whereas you've provided (wrt
>:|usage of federal taxpayer monies for education in all states) that which was
>:|previously proven false or "skewed".
Let the readers decide.
>:|Yes, we've "danced" before, and you've run every time, by finishing your posts
>:|with a long re-posting of the same diatribe that was previously addressed, while
>:|you ignore questions and claim other posts to respond to, "claiming" you're
>:|"leaving the reader to decide.".
Yep. let the readers decide
(3) Google searches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
(4) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
>:|Unfortunately, you believe you're the only one that should "lead", while
>:|ignoring those that understand the "music" and the "steps" better than you.
That leaves you out.
>:|>BTW. you haven't debunked any of the data I have provided except maybe in
>:|>your dreams.
>:|
>:|As you like to say, "Your unsubstantiated claim is noted."
Let the readers decide
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
>:|violation of the establishment clause.
The founders separated church and state, they didn't separate education
and state, in fact did the exact opposite.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
>:|"cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your credibility and
>:|failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to admit it and
>:|move on.
NOTE THE DATE:
From: jalison
Subject: Re: Religion in Public Schools-previously Re: Open letter to
George Bush
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, alt.religion, alt.politics.bush,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics
Date: 2002-02-02 10:16:19 PST
bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>:|On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:14:54 GMT, jal...@cox.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|Oh my. jal...@cox.net going to again repost all of his website's data again,
>:|
>:|Even after he's been shown to be in error.
You will have to excuse me, I am involved in a much more entertaining and
fun discussion about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson in the
soc.history.war.us-revolution news group.
That doesn't mean I won't check in here from time to time and when I get
around respond to any of your replies or posts that is if any need any
responses.
However, you remind me of the type of person who seeks to have the last
word so that you can then claim some sort of victory.
I came into this thread because you were doing exactly that, boasting of
your victory in another thread. Well, no such victory had taken place, and
I was very happy to re-post the material from that thread in this thread.
You remind me of certain people I have run across in other news groups.
Those people who claim original intention, bitch about judicial
activism,-never mentioning times when their side was equally "guilty," how
unconstitutional judicial review is, how unconstitutional incorporation via
the 14th amendment was/is, how unconstitutional govt involvement in
education is, how unconstitutional church state separation is, and so on.
There are usually half a dozen or so pet causes they will argue with anyone
who will bother to reply to them at all. Their politics which sooner or
later almost always comes to the surface is usually ultra conservative or
libertarian. In spite of the history, in spite of the documentation that
anyone can provide that counters their arguments and often time non facts
or very meager facts, in spite of the fact that there position is not
legally recognized and in some cases have been denied by the highest court
of the land, they will continue argue till the cows come home, until all
others just get completely bored with it all and walk away.
Then you will soon see them showing up in the same news group or another
boasting about their great victory and beginning the same or another of
those half a dozen or so pet causes all over again.
=================================================
This can be said very simple, and I frankly don't care if you accept it or
reject it. I frankly don't care if you want to believe it or not.
Beginning with the Land Ordinance of 1785, there was a legal union formed
between govt, (what was to become known as local, state and national levels
of govt) and education. There was a requirement and a guide if you will
for the establishments of education, both lower and higher forms of
education and a means given for the financing and support of that
education, which included people and govt. on the local level as well as
what would become the territorial/state level and finally the national
level.
This is a matter of historical record. Like it or not.
That Land Ordinance became the foundation, the blueprint if you will for
some or our real estate laws, some of the tax laws, regarding property and
land, etc.
The support for education, etc was included in the Northwest Ordinance
which was framed two years later, passed by the Cont. Congress and passed
again by the First Federal Congress.
No matter what, James Madison might of argued on any given day in Congress,
and I do truly admire the man, no matter what he may have thought of
Alexander Hamilton, in 1787, 1790, 1800 ( a time I might add that was
transformational for Madison, when he was moving from a foe of state govt,
and a advocate of a strong national govt. to more in line with Jefferson,
and then latter back more to the opposite again, but not as far as in 1787)
the following did historically take place, in spite of what you want to
claim:
==============================================
The dark side of the story is that vast sums were lost through
===============================================
Fianlly, there has not been nor will there likely be any court in this land
that will declare govt funding of edication of education to be
unconstitutional.
Thus you are jousting with windmills if you will.
For those wishing to do independent study on their own, the following is a
good beginning:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Land Ordinance itself:
Excerpt from the Land Ordinance of 1785:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item #1
May 20, 1785
There shall be reserved for the United States out of every
township, the four lots, being numbered 8, 11, 28, 29, and out of every
fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be
found thereon, for future sale. THERE SHALL BE RESERVED THE LOT
N 16, OF EVERY TOWNSHIP, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, WITHIN SAID TOWNSHIP (Emphasis mine); also one third part of all
gold, silver, lead and copper mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of
as Congress shall hereafter direct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person # 1
Slavery and Bondage in the "Empire of Liberty" Paul Finkelman Northwest
Ordinance, Essays on its formulation, provisions and Legacy, Edited by
Frederick D. Williams, Michigan State University Press. (1988) p 75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #2
(Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986) p 148-155)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #3
D. Stickney and Lawrence R. Marcus, THE GREAT EDUCATION DEBATE: WASHINGTON
AND THE SCHOOLS, Springfield, ill. CC Thomas, 1984 page 6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #4
"Public Education in the United States, From Revolution
to Reform, by R. Freeman Butts, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, (1978)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #5
The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman Butts.
Greenwood Press Publishers (1974)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #6
The Development of Public Universities in the Old Northwest, by Jurgen
Herbst, pp 97. Northwest Ordinance, Essays on its formulation, Provisions
and Legacy, edited by Fredick D. Williams Michigan State University press.
(1988)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #7
Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #8 & #9
Paul Mort, Federal Support for Public Education_, 1936; he's quoting from a
article titled "Federal Financing of Education," by William Russell,
published in "School and Society," August 19, 1933):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #10
Political Inquires to which is Added A Plan for the Establishment of
Schools Throughout the United States, Robert Coram, (1791). American
Political Writing During the Founding Era, 1760- 1805, Volume II, Charles
S. Hyneman, Donald S. Lutz, Liberty Press, Indianapolis, (1983) p. 784
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #11
American Presidents and Education, Maurice R. Berube,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #12
The Northwest Ordinance as a Constitutional Document, Denis P. Duffey.
Columbia Law Review, Vol 95, May 1995, No.4, p 938)
====================================================
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
-------- --------- ------------ -------
#1
See James A. Curry et al., Constitutional Government: The American
Experience 81 (1989); see also Carter, supra note 4,. at 22 (noting that
the pattern applied to the Northwest Territory also applied largely to the
Southwest Territory and to the territories of Mississippi. Orleans.
Louisiani-Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida); Eblen. supra note 5,
at 241 ("[I)ts provisions were to lay the foundation for the government of
the thirty-one public Lands states and Hawaii."). For the Southwest
Ordinance and other legislative progeny of the Northwest Ordinance, see
Frederick E. Hosen. Unfolding Westward in Treaty and Law: Land Documents in
United States History from the Appalachians to the Pacific, 1785-1934, a 45
(Southwest Ordinance) 59-80 (Mississippi Territorial Act), 84-.89 (Missouri
Territorial Act), 188-97 (Oregon Territorial Act), 197-203 (Minnesota
Territorial Act) (1988).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2
REPORT ON MANUFACTURES, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed, THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER
HAMILTON, Vol 4, New York: GP Putnam & Sons, 1904, pp 151-52)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3
Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates over Original Intent,
Joseph M. Lynch Cornell University Press (1999)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4
Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
291-296
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5
The Writings of James Madison, Edited by Gaillard
Hunt, Volume II, 1783-178,7 G P Putnam/s Sons, New York London 1901, pp
143- 145)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6
The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Annals of
Congress) August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by Gales and
Seaton, Washington, 1834
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#7
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, A
Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers, by Paul
Eidelberg, 1986, University Press of America,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#8
PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING, Cases
and Materials, Second Edition, Paul & Sanford Levinson, Little, Brown and
Company, Boston-Toronto, 1983, pp 9-10.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#9
James Madison, JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, Freeport NY Books
for Libraries Press 1970
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#10
Bicentennial Edition NOTES OF THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787, Reported by James Madison, W.W. Norton & Company New York-London
1987, pp 27- 34
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL OUTLINE:
#1
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Let the readers decide.
(3) Google searches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
(4) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
>:|"cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your credibility and
>:|failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to admit it and
>:|move on.
Let the readers decide.
(3) Google searches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
(4) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
The greastest evidence that can be offered is offered by me
It's called reality. It's called what is.
Get over it.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:10:38 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>Congress doesn't fund public education. Congress funds specific
>>programs which aid public education in certain arenas.
>
>Downplay it all you want Bob, ti's still using federal taxpayer monies to fund
>public education in all states. Whether it's "a" program or a number of specific
>programs doesn't change that fact.
>
>A quick check reveals 'US Department of Education currently
>administers a budget of about $54 Billion per year.' ("give or take" 1-3
>Billion).
So what? If they had called it the Department of Tiddlywinks, that
does not mean that it is a violation of the Constitution which doesn't
mention tiddlywinks.
>Downplay it and "twist it" in whatever way makes you feel comfortable Bob, yet
>a geat deal of these Billions spent on public education in all states uses
>federal taxpayer monies,
So what? Nothing prevents the states from accepting money from
outside sources, with or without strings, in order to fund legitimate
state programs.
>and whether it is done so through one or a number of
>"specific" programs is irrelevent.
If the programs are within the Constitutional purview, then the
niceties of the constitution are met.
>>(If these programs were unconstitutional, someone would have
>>successfully challenged them by now. They haven't.)
>
>That such programs "would have successfully (been) challenged" or even been
>challenged at all on the economic not religious grounds is but conjecture on
>your part.
They haven't been challenged, and YOU surely haven't the arguments
with which to challenge them. Therefore they are constitutional.
>>Jefferson also felt that the Louisiana Purchase was probably not
>>within the Constitutional powers. He did it anyway. That territory
>>is and will be part of the United States for the indefinite future.
>>Live with it.
>
>This was addressed in another post. That you've failed to keep up with the
>discussion is of no concern of mine.
I haven't conceded any points in this matter, and don't expect to.
You might have addressed the price of beans and baloney in Iraq for
all I care. Your declaration of prior victory is meaningless.
>>He doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does anyone else. You have
>>no credibility on this matter; he does.
>
>So you've been officially elected in this NG as spokesperson for jailson alias
>"buckeye" and "anyone else" other than. yourself? Just based on that pompous
>and arrogant attitude alone, I demand a "recall" : -)
Screw you.
>Despite your "jumping in" to this thread,
I can jump in on any thread I want.
Bob LeChevalier
>I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
>violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect establish
>atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
No.
>over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
>creatures).
Non-recognition of one belief system does not constitute recognition
of the opposite belief system.
>In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
>evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e. cross,
>ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
No "non-evidentiary belief system" which is a religion can be
supported at all, competing or otherwise. However non-religious
ethical or moral systems (which might or might not be considered
belief systems) aren't religions, and so might be permitted (hence we
allow patriotism, which is such a belief system involving the goodness
if not superiority of our country).
Dave Thompson
> violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect establish
> atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
> over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
> creatures).
That's ridiculous. Public schools are religion nuetral, the exceptions
mostly being schools that still have school prayer. The problem is that you
hear about every instance of a student getting the prayer editted out of
their speach, but rarely hear about all of the schools that violate the
establishment clause by playing pralers over the intercom or leading prayers
at football games. If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they cannot
> be falsified and are simply held on faith.
There are no schools teaching atheism. Period. What you are trying to do is
something I've heard before - you're trying to argue that a school can't be
neutral unless they have prayer and that being neutral is actually teaching
atheism. There might be some people that buy into this bait and switch, but
most won't.
>
> In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
cross,
> ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
School is not a forum for religion, that's why you have church. Please go to
the church of your choice and leave the school system for what it was
intended: education.
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:10:38 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>>Congress doesn't fund public education. Congress funds specific
>>>programs which aid public education in certain arenas.
>>
>>Downplay it all you want Bob, ti's still using federal taxpayer monies to fund
>>public education in all states. Whether it's "a" program or a number of specific
>>programs doesn't change that fact.
>>
>>A quick check reveals 'US Department of Education currently
>>administers a budget of about $54 Billion per year.' ("give or take" 1-3
>>Billion).
>
>So what? If they had called it the Department of Tiddlywinks, that
>does not mean that it is a violation of the Constitution which doesn't
>mention tiddlywinks.
No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to the
Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative branches, are
those powers not emmuerated to them. One of the powers not enumerated is the
usage of federal taxpayer monies for public education to all states..
Else, you are content to disregard the principles applied and intented by those
that founded/framed and ratified the US Constitution. Your choice.
>>Downplay it and "twist it" in whatever way makes you feel comfortable Bob, yet
>>a geat deal of these Billions spent on public education in all states uses
>>federal taxpayer monies,
>
>So what? Nothing prevents the states from accepting money from
>outside sources, with or without strings, in order to fund legitimate
>state programs.
I would agree...EXCEPT... "outside sources" do not include the federal
government, as unlike "outside sources", they are not limited by the enumerated
powers delegated to them by the states.
OTOH, States may in fact be may be limited by whom they may "accepting money
from" wrt "outside sources" based on their own State Constitutions.
>>and whether it is done so through one or a number of
>>"specific" programs is irrelevent.
>
>If the programs are within the Constitutional purview, then the
>niceties of the constitution are met.
Please Bob, show us where the "Constitutional purview" originated and may be
found to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states.
OTOH, when the judges that decide that "constitutional purview" are the same
type that prefer to "follow the elections returns", rather than the principles
of constitutional law, one must question their "good Behaviour" and their
dedication to uphold their oath of office.
>>>(If these programs were unconstitutional, someone would have
>>>successfully challenged them by now. They haven't.)
>>
>>That such programs "would have successfully (been) challenged" or even been
>>challenged at all on the economic not religious grounds is but conjecture on
>>your part.
>
>They haven't been challenged, and YOU surely haven't the arguments
>with which to challenge them. Therefore they are constitutional.
Then maybe you should read such information that many lawyers and judges use wrt
the principles of law, such as those found in the American Jurisprudence
volumes. Unfortunately, there are too many that wish to ignore such principles
and may be found sitting behind the primary desk within a courtroom.
(I suspect that too, will change in time, as the pendulum is beginning to
"swing" in a direction not seen in 60+ years. Patience is a virtue)
>>>Jefferson also felt that the Louisiana Purchase was probably not
>>>within the Constitutional powers. He did it anyway. That territory
>>>is and will be part of the United States for the indefinite future.
>>>Live with it.
>>
>>This was addressed in another post. That you've failed to keep up with the
>>discussion is of no concern of mine.
>
>I haven't conceded any points in this matter, and don't expect to.
>You might have addressed the price of beans and baloney in Iraq for
>all I care. Your declaration of prior victory is meaningless.
No one asked you to "concede any points", Bob, nor have I "declared victory".
OTOH, when one posts a response without fully reading the material presented, it
may make you look, well...foolish by your uniformed response. And it did.
>>>He doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does anyone else. You have
>>>no credibility on this matter; he does.
>>
>>So you've been officially elected in this NG as spokesperson for jailson alias
>>"buckeye" and "anyone else" other than. yourself? Just based on that pompous
>>and arrogant attitude alone, I demand a "recall" : -)
>
>Screw you.
Ah, the "mature" response from Bob. It is apparent then, you can not "speak" for
anyone other than yourself. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>Despite your "jumping in" to this thread,
>
>I can jump in on any thread I want.
Yes you are totally free to do just that, Bob. Yet as I noted above, 'when one
posts a response without fully reading the material presented, it may make you
look, well...foolish by your uniformed response. And it did.'
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
>>:|
>>:|IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
>>:|"cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your credibility and
>>:|failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to admit it and
>>:|move on.
>
>NOTE THE DATE:
>
>From: jalison
>Subject: Re: Religion in Public Schools-previously Re: Open letter to
>George Bush
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, alt.religion, alt.politics.bush,
>alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics
>Date: 2002-02-02 10:16:19 PST
>
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
>>:|On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:14:54 GMT, jal...@cox.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|
>>:|Oh my. jal...@cox.net going to again repost all of his website's data again,
>>:|
>>:|Even after he's been shown to be in error.
>
>You will have to excuse me, I am involved in a much more entertaining and
>fun discussion about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson in the
>soc.history.war.us-revolution news group.
To which I then congratulated you on. Your point?
"snip" of the same 'ole baloney you've posted time and again, and you use to
"bury" those who oppose you with "spam" in an effort to avoid questions.
Understood.
Info Junkie
ROTFLHMO!. How pompous and arrogrant you sound!
First: "let the reader decide", Then, "The greastest evidence that can be
offered is offered by me".. hahahahahah.
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
>>:|On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:59:01 -0500, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>>:|"snip" the same 'ole baloney that jailson alias "buckeye" has foisted in these
>>:|>>:|ngs that equate to little more than spam.
>>:|>>:|
>>:|>>:|The "theory" is from jailson alias "buckeye" that has been debunked time and
>>:|>>:|again. The facts have been provided previously in other threads.
>>:|>
>>:|>Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>>:|
>>:|You've not proven it's "unsubstabntiated". Your "claim" that it is however,
>>:|is...
>
>Let the readers decide
Then you will refrain from responding to people will hundreds of lines of
cut-and-paste posts that do little but allow you to "claim" victory, possibly
bore many into stop reading the thread, and use it to avoid answering questions
posed to you? Nah, you'd never allow that, else you'd have to admit when you've
been shown in error.
>>:|>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>:|> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
>>:|>claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
>>:|>irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
>>:|>the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
>>:|>responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
>>:|>considering
>>:|
>>:|Previously provided. That you disagree with it is not "proof".
>
> What I provide is mostly data from scholars, etc. not my opinion.
>Gee, that must have been over your head.
Yes, the "scholars" I've shown have erred. Unless of course, you're referring to
"writing and research by Jim Allison". LOL.
>
>>:|>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>:|>[ as Homer@nospam said]
>>:|>Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
>>:|>truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
>>:|>that
>>:|>people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
>>:|
>>:|Non sequitur as I've not written this.
>>:|
>>:|>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>:|>[as Gray Shockley said:]
>>:|> (Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
>>:|>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>:|
>>:|Non sequitur as I've not written this.
>
>Ho hum, your comment is irrelevant and it does apply to you.
Do you normally quote other poster's when you can not come up with anything
original yourself? Ooops, I forgot about your constant cut-andi-pasting of the
same 'ole baloney time and again.
>>:|>We've danced this dance before and there is no need to do it again.
>>:|
>>:|Ask you like to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.".
>>:|Unfortunately for you, I've provided such proof, whereas you've provided (wrt
>>:|usage of federal taxpayer monies for education in all states) that which was
>>:|previously proven false or "skewed".
>
>Let the readers decide.
>
>>:|Yes, we've "danced" before, and you've run every time, by finishing your posts
>>:|with a long re-posting of the same diatribe that was previously addressed, while
>>:|you ignore questions and claim other posts to respond to, "claiming" you're
>>:|"leaving the reader to decide.".
>
>Yep. let the readers decide
>
>(1) http://snurl.com/2t5x
>
>(2) http://snurl.com/2t5z
Strange that you provide URLs that don't begin at the start of the thread, yet
begin only with your own diatribe. How, uh, "disingenuous" of you. Not the
"whole truth", just the parts you want to "let the readers decide" on, eh? LOL.
>(3) Google searches using the following:
>jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
>http://snurl.com/2sz6
>
>(4) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
>schools
>http://snurl.com/2sz7
>
>>:|Unfortunately, you believe you're the only one that should "lead", while
>>:|ignoring those that understand the "music" and the "steps" better than you.
>
>That leaves you out.
Yes, you do like to "dance" alone, as it appears you wish to avoid questions
that you'd have to admit error..
>>:|>BTW. you haven't debunked any of the data I have provided except maybe in
>>:|>your dreams.
>>:|
>>:|As you like to say, "Your unsubstantiated claim is noted."
>
>Let the readers decide
So you say. We'll see, eh?
Marion McCoskey
quibble over they ways and means. I support anyone who has a proposal
to help eliminate this awful practice.
Marion McCoskey
http://www.mcky.net
rex" <re...@ij.net> wrote in message news:<3fa11efa$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
> Government schools would be prohibited, as well as government churches,
> in a new proposed constitutional amendment. Under the proposal, the First
> Amendment of the United States Constitution should state: "Congress shall
> make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the
> speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
> and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nor suppressing
> such through an establishment of religion or education."
> The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of
> church and state. And for the same ideological reasons.
Carol Lee Smith
> Public schools are an idea whose time has gone. It's not important to
> quibble over they ways and means. I support anyone who has a proposal
> to help eliminate this awful practice.
So you think privatization is appropriate for public schools?
Would students and their families pay enrollement?
How much would that cost per student?
What would become of those who cannot afford to pay for education?
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
Raymond E. Griffith
Lee Smith at hu...@csd.uwm.edu wrote on 11/2/03 9:04 PM:
Ahhh. Some very sensible questions. The most sensible of which is the last
one, and the question I would guess will get the least coverage.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:42:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to the
>Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
>
>What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative branches, are
>those powers not emmuerated to them.
False. Clearly, it is within their power, because they do it.
>One of the powers not enumerated is the
>usage of federal taxpayer monies for public education to all states.
Three powers not enumerated is that the president shall be able to
eat, breath and take a shit. Does that mean that he doesn't have the
power to do so?
>Else, you are content to disregard the principles applied and intented by those
>that founded/framed and ratified the US Constitution.
I know how they applied the Constitution at that time, which gives a
good idea what they intended. I trust the USSC to judge what they
intended more than I trust an imbecile like you.
>>>Downplay it and "twist it" in whatever way makes you feel comfortable Bob, yet
>>>a geat deal of these Billions spent on public education in all states uses
>>>federal taxpayer monies,
>>
>>So what? Nothing prevents the states from accepting money from
>>outside sources, with or without strings, in order to fund legitimate
>>state programs.
>
>I would agree...EXCEPT... "outside sources" do not include the federal
>government, as unlike "outside sources", they are not limited by the enumerated
>powers delegated to them by the states.
The states are not limited in who they can accept money from.
The feds are not limited so long as they can shoehorn the
appropriation under some clause of the constitution liberally
interpreted.
They do it; it has stood the test of time. Live with it. Or sue if
you prefer; I won't hold my breath waiting for them to laugh you out
of court, but they will do so all the same.
>OTOH, States may in fact be may be limited by whom they may "accepting money
>from" wrt "outside sources" based on their own State Constitutions.
They possibly could be if their constitutions said so, but they are
not, so their constitutions obviously don't.
>>>and whether it is done so through one or a number of
>>>"specific" programs is irrelevent.
>>
>>If the programs are within the Constitutional purview, then the
>>niceties of the constitution are met.
>
>Please Bob, show us where the "Constitutional purview" originated and may be
>found to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states.
I have. You don't like my answer. Tough.
>OTOH, when the judges that decide that "constitutional purview" are the same
>type that prefer to "follow the elections returns", rather than the principles
>of constitutional law, one must question their "good Behaviour" and their
>dedication to uphold their oath of office.
Then maybe the Congress will impeach them. But I won't hold my breath
for that either.
>>They haven't been challenged, and YOU surely haven't the arguments
>>with which to challenge them. Therefore they are constitutional.
>
>Then maybe you should read such information that many lawyers and judges use wrt
>the principles of law, such as those found in the American Jurisprudence
>volumes. Unfortunately, there are too many that wish to ignore such principles
>and may be found sitting behind the primary desk within a courtroom.
Your unsupported opinion is worthless (and support in this case means
a court decision agreeing with you). You aren't trained in the law,
and have zero credibility in this matter.
>>I haven't conceded any points in this matter, and don't expect to.
>>You might have addressed the price of beans and baloney in Iraq for
>>all I care. Your declaration of prior victory is meaningless.
>
>No one asked you to "concede any points", Bob, nor have I "declared victory".
>OTOH, when one posts a response without fully reading the material presented, it
>may make you look, well...foolish by your uniformed response. And it did.
Why should I read your garbage. You cannot prove your case. You are
ignorant and untrained in the law. Your opinion is irrelevant to
anyone but you.
>>>>He doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does anyone else. You have
>>>>no credibility on this matter; he does.
>>>
>>>So you've been officially elected in this NG as spokesperson for jailson alias
>>>"buckeye" and "anyone else" other than. yourself? Just based on that pompous
>>>and arrogant attitude alone, I demand a "recall" : -)
>>
>>Screw you.
>
>Ah, the "mature" response from Bob. It is apparent then, you can not "speak" for
>anyone other than yourself. Thanks for clearing that up.
Of course not. How could I speak for anyone else.
jalison doesn't claim to speak for anyone else either. He generally
merely presents organized evidence generated by people qualified to
opine, knowing that his opinion doesn't matter either.
dpr
news:3knbqv4t34tcj2i33...@4ax.com...
> bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
> >On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:42:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
wrote:
> >No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to the
> >Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
> >
> >What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative branches,
are
> >those powers not emmuerated to them.
>
> False. Clearly, it is within their power, because they do it.
That they do it, does not mean it is within their power enumerated by the
Constitution. That you will just lay down and accept what they do as being
right, reflects your own weakness.
>
> >One of the powers not enumerated is the
> >usage of federal taxpayer monies for public education to all states.
>
> Three powers not enumerated is that the president shall be able to
> eat, breath and take a shit. Does that mean that he doesn't have the
> power to do so?
You can do better than that bob. Show us where theConstitution enumerates
the use of using taxpayer money on public education.
Brian Mason
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qg4aqvofeqlkqejsh...@4ax.com...
Congress was not given the education power. That was left to the states.
The 14th amendment extended constitutional protections to individuals v
states.
>
Brian Mason
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yd7pb.1969$zx3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> "Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com>" <bma<rem> wrote in message
> news:3fa4b...@127.0.0.1...
> > I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
> > violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect
establish
> > atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural
creatures)
> > over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra
natural
> > creatures). These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they
> cannot
> > be falsified and are simply held on faith.
>
> This is just dumb. Not teaching religion doesn't teach that there is no
> religion any more than schools promote satanism because they don't say
it's
> bad.
Not only is it not taught but at gun point others are prohibited from
supporting rival views.
>
> I sure hope you don't try to teach logic.
It is good you have hopes.
>
> >
> > In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> > evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
> cross,
> > ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
>
> Stupid.
You are? Sorry to hear that.
It does not matter to me, I will give your ideas a fair hearing regardless.
Brian Mason
> "Brian Mason" <bma<rem>s...@itassociates.com> wrote:
>
> >I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
> >violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect
establish
> >atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural
creatures)
>
> No.
>
> >over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
> >creatures).
>
> Non-recognition of one belief system does not constitute recognition
> of the opposite belief system.
Not only is it not recognized but at gun point others are prohibited from
supporting rival views.
It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
themselves, expressions of any religion other than Atheism is forbidden.
Having no evidence to support their views, of course Athiests use force
against their rivals as did Christians when they had the power to do so.
>
> >In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> >evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
cross,
> >ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
>
> No "non-evidentiary belief system" which is a religion can be
> supported at all, competing or otherwise. However non-religious
> ethical or moral systems (which might or might not be considered
> belief systems) aren't religions, and so might be permitted (hence we
> allow patriotism, which is such a belief system involving the goodness
> if not superiority of our country).
A competing view of patriotism (i.e. flag burning) is allowed.
I am calling willingness to use force to support views which cannot be
falsified a religion. Common parlance: "X is his religion"; meaning he
does not admit of criticisms of X, will force it on others if able, will not
provide evidence, ...
Brian Mason
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.10311...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On 2 Nov 2003, Marion McCoskey wrote:
>
> > Public schools are an idea whose time has gone. It's not important to
> > quibble over they ways and means. I support anyone who has a proposal
> > to help eliminate this awful practice.
>
> So you think privatization is appropriate for public schools?
>
> Would students and their families pay enrollement?
>
> How much would that cost per student?
>
> What would become of those who cannot afford to pay for education?
K-12 education has increased in real cost by a factor of seven and decreased
in quality(as measured by standardized achievement scores) since the 50s.
Privatizing it will make it much better and cheaper like everything else for
the same reason.
Those who will benefit though they cannot afford it (remember it has been
made much better and cheaper) will receive help from family, church,
community, ...
You worry about those who WILL NOT benefit(as judged by those who actually
KNOW them: local bankers, extended family members, ...). Those that can
only gain access to funds of people who do NOT know them and cannot well
judge whether their education is worth investing in.
Same old crap: it is such a good idea, so sure of payoff, so obviously
good, ... that we must use guns to force people to do it.
>
>
> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
>
Brian Mason
"Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:vqajgr2...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com>" <bma<rem> wrote in message
> news:3fa4b...@127.0.0.1...
> > I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
> > violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect
establish
> > atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural
creatures)
> > over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra
natural
> > creatures).
>
> That's ridiculous. Public schools are religion nuetral, the exceptions
> mostly being schools that still have school prayer. The problem is that
you
> hear about every instance of a student getting the prayer editted out of
> their speach, but rarely hear about all of the schools that violate the
> establishment clause by playing pralers over the intercom or leading
prayers
> at football games. If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
> policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
Not only is it not taught but at gun point others are prohibited from
supporting rival views.
The prayer leaders are sought out and forced to support Athiesm at gunpoint.
It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
themselves, expressions of any religion other than Atheism is forbidden.
Having no evidence to support their views, of course Athiests use force
against their rivals as did Christians when they had the power to do so
>
>
> These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they cannot
> > be falsified and are simply held on faith.
>
> There are no schools teaching atheism. Period. What you are trying to do
is
> something I've heard before - you're trying to argue that a school can't
be
> neutral unless they have prayer and that being neutral is actually
teaching
> atheism. There might be some people that buy into this bait and switch,
but
> most won't.
>
>
>
> >
> > In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> > evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
> cross,
> > ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
>
> School is not a forum for religion, that's why you have church. Please go
to
> the church of your choice and leave the school system for what it was
> intended: education.
So return the public school monies to parents and let them choose.
Raymond E. Griffith
bma<rem wrote on 11/3/03 1:38 AM:
>
> "Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
> news:vqajgr2...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com>" <bma<rem> wrote in message
>> news:3fa4b...@127.0.0.1...
>>> I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
>>> violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect
> establish
>>> atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural
> creatures)
>>> over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra
> natural
>>> creatures).
>>
>> That's ridiculous. Public schools are religion nuetral, the exceptions
>> mostly being schools that still have school prayer. The problem is that
> you
>> hear about every instance of a student getting the prayer editted out of
>> their speach, but rarely hear about all of the schools that violate the
>> establishment clause by playing pralers over the intercom or leading
> prayers
>> at football games. If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
>> policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
>
> Not only is it not taught but at gun point others are prohibited from
> supporting rival views.
>
Ridiculous. Where is this happening? Specifically? Where are teachers being
forced to teach atheism *at gun point*? Name your sources, and they need to
have places, names, and dates.
> The prayer leaders are sought out and forced to support Athiesm at gunpoint.
Not in evidence. Assertion does not equal proof.
>
> It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
> themselves, expressions of any religion other than Atheism is forbidden.
> Having no evidence to support their views, of course Athiests use force
> against their rivals as did Christians when they had the power to do so
Not at all. There are regularly expressions of religion allowed among and by
students. Teachers are not allowed to promote any religious or sectarian
viewpoint, but that is a reasonable restriction. After all, you would not
want a teacher promoting religious doctrine you disagreed with, right? Even
in the matter of prayer, an adherent to Islam would be offensive to most
Christians.
In point of fact, it might have been atheists who objected to being forced
to participate in religious activities against their will, but many faithful
Christians support their objections. The loss of freedom of conscience is a
terrible thing, and most Christians recognize this.
Carol Lee Smith
> "Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
> > "Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com>" <bma<rem> wrote in message
> > ... If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
> > policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
> Not only is it not taught but at gun point others are prohibited from
> supporting rival views.
Imterest was expressed in your providing "even one circumstance of a
school policy being the teaching that there is no god"
Apparently you aren't able to do that.
Why should your opinions be given any credibility when you can't provide
evidence?
> The prayer leaders are sought out and forced to support
Athiesm [sic] at gunpoint.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I haven't even seen any ordinary evidence yet.
> It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
> themselves, expressions of any religion other than Atheism is forbidden.
Provide proof that there are any inappropriate expressions of atheism in
the public schools.
> Having no evidence to support their views, of course Athiests [sic]
> use force against their rivals as did Christians when they had the
> power to do so
Examples of this "force" ???
Raymond E. Griffith
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.10311...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> On 2 Nov 2003, Marion McCoskey wrote:
>>
>>> Public schools are an idea whose time has gone. It's not important to
>>> quibble over they ways and means. I support anyone who has a proposal
>>> to help eliminate this awful practice.
>>
>> So you think privatization is appropriate for public schools?
>>
>> Would students and their families pay enrollement?
>>
>> How much would that cost per student?
>>
>> What would become of those who cannot afford to pay for education?
>
> K-12 education has increased in real cost by a factor of seven and decreased
> in quality(as measured by standardized achievement scores) since the 50s.
>
> Privatizing it will make it much better and cheaper like everything else for
> the same reason.
>
> Those who will benefit though they cannot afford it (remember it has been
> made much better and cheaper) will receive help from family, church,
> community, ...
>
> You worry about those who WILL NOT benefit(as judged by those who actually
> KNOW them: local bankers, extended family members, ...). Those that can
> only gain access to funds of people who do NOT know them and cannot well
> judge whether their education is worth investing in.
I see. You are hopefully promoting an education underclass. Those who aren't
worth investing in won't get it, and who cares what happens to them?
Of course, without an education, they will become the economic slaves in the
nation. I figure you know this. How many slaves are you wanting to own?
>
> Same old crap: it is such a good idea, so sure of payoff, so obviously
> good, ... that we must use guns to force people to do it.
Oh right. That might be because you don't exercise any Christian charity.
You know, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that. You want an
education for your own children, but not for others, and do not care what
happens to them so long as your needs are met.
Delightfully vicious, this attitude. Thank you for demonstrating it
publicly.
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
>>
>
>
bucke...@nospam.net
Let me see if I understand this:
From 1789 to the present thousands of judges and justices that have sat on
the three levels of state courts and the three levels of federal courts
didn't discover what you and a few ultra libbertarians and ultra
conservatives think you have discovered. Is this your position?
I will ask you a few questions:
How many certificates, diplomas, or degrees do you have recognition of your
successful completion of courses of study in law or law related topics?
How many lawyers have you worked closely with or been associated with?
How many lawyers have you helped prepare for court and then assisted in
court as they went about their professional duties?
How many cases have you tried?
How many times have you been elected to a state bench or been appointed to
a state or bench?
Those thousands of judges and justices had law degrees, passed whatever bar
exam that was required, practiced law, kept up with the required CLE each
year (Continuing Legal Education). They probably published some articles
along the way for law journals or law reviews, was elected or appointed to
the bench, and in the case of those above their initial elected or
appointed position moved up through the levels till they reached the final
position held by them before retirement or death.
They had the legal education and the legal experience, neither of which you
have.
THUS, let the readers decide.
The judges and Justices, the scholars already have.
*********************************
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
SCHOOL: The PBS Series
Premieres September 3-4, 2001, 9-11 P.M. ET (check local listings)
Series narrated by Academy Award winner Meryl Streep
SCHOOL: The Story of American Public Education, is a dramatic four-part
documentary series that chronicles the development of our nation's public
education system from the late 1770s to the 21st century. Produced by Stone
Lantern Films, and presented by KCET/Hollywood, SCHOOL (narrated by Academy
Award winner Meryl Streep) recaptures the idealism of the early proponents
of public education and continues with an unflinching look at the
experiments and challenges that contribute to the climate in the classroom
today. For episode descriptions and video clips, visit the program
descriptions in this section.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/program.html
Episode 1 — The Common School (1770 - 1890)
In the aftermath of the Revolution, a newly independent America came
face-to-face with one of its most daunting challenges: how to build a
united nation out of 13 colonies with little in common. Many citizens
believed that education held the key. This episode profiles the passionate
crusade launched by Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann and others to create a
common system of tax-supported schools that would mix people of different
backgrounds and reinforce the bonds that tie Americans together. Would the
grand experiment, with all of its flaws, succeed?
View a video clip from the series
Episode 2 — As American As Public School (1900 - 1950)
Episode 3 — Equality (1950 - 1980)
Episode 4 — The Bottom Line (1980 - the present)
*****************************************
(5) Google searches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
(6) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
Carol Lee Smith
> In point of fact, it might have been atheists who objected to being forced
> to participate in religious activities against their will, but many faithful
> Christians support their objections. The loss of freedom of conscience is a
> terrible thing, and most Christians recognize this.
In point of fact, litigants have been religious.
For example the Schempps were not atheists.
http://dev.uua.org/news/2002/civil/eschempp.html
Neither were the Weismans.
http://www.colby.edu/govt/faculty/jrr/go314/lee.html
There are other such examples.
bucke...@nospam.net
*********************************
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/program.html
*****************************************
(5) Google searches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
(6) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
The greastest evidence that can be offered is offered by me
bucke...@nospam.net
*********************************
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/program.html
*****************************************
(5) Google searches using the following:
jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
http://snurl.com/2sz6
(6) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
schools
http://snurl.com/2sz7
The greastest evidence that can be offered is offered by me
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
#1
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.atheism
Subject: edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:44:26 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nocfbtcbrfo9aaecg0pdf6r4ie3a4df6ul%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=socfbtk6h334p28lm2aii0jt24tt3chta0%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3vcfbtsljmeek2qcm383kke4j8vj7se94j%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=frhhbt42tqjjdo4sv20ei6urjij5lpis2s%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7mhhbtc0l7hck7g66g745cnbsl368r96qr%404ax.com&output=gplain
********************************************************
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hhhbt0fujrmop7mh730ilddh8131dd1s6%404ax.com&output=gplain
Even before the federal constitution was ratified, the story
of the federal government's involvement with schools began with the
Ordinance of 1785, which was passed by the congress established under the
Articles of Confederation. The ordinance specified how property lines in
the western territory should "be measured with a chain ... plainly marked
by chaps on the trees, and exactly described on a plat, whereon shall be
noted ... all mines, salt-springs, salt-licks, and mill-seats." The
document stipulated that land should be divided into townships, each six
miles square and subdivided into 36 lots each a mile square. In
businesslike fashion, it established the terms of the deed between the
United States and citizens buying lands from the public domain. One clause
linked the congressional ordinance explicitly to schooling: "There shall be
reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public
schools, within the said township." The intention of the framers was that
the land would be sold to settlers and the income from the sales would be
used to support the school.
Two years later, the Confederation Congress passed the Ordinance of
1787. This measure went further than its predecessor by setting the rules
for governing the territory northwest of the Ohio River. The ordinance
stipulated a plan for a governor, general assembly, and courts for each
territory to be created from that immense wilderness. It established the
procedure whereby each might become a state. Between the existing states of
the Confederation and the new ones, the ordinance proclaimed a compact that
prohibited slavery and guaranteed religious freedom and basic legal rights
like those later embodied in the Bill of Rights. Laying down fundamental
conditions for building new states, the ordinance also included a sentence
asserting that "religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged."
During the first century of the new nation, Congress granted more
than 77 million acres of the public domain as an endowment for the support
of public schools. In times of pressing national debt, congressional
leaders were eager to sell the western lands owned by the federal
government; land speculators persuaded Congress to include subsidies for
schools as an inducement to attract settlers.
The tracts ceded to states for the support of public schools grew
steadily over the years. In 1841, Congress passed an act that granted
500,000 acres to eight states, later increased to make grants to a total of
nineteen states, to be used for "internal improvements." A majority of
these states devoted all or part of the income from these lands to the
schools. In 1848, Congress approved the policy of reserving two lots, 16
and 36, for the support of schools when it established the territorial
government of Oregon. In 1850, California was the first state to receive
both lots, amounting to 5.5 percent of the public domain in the state. The
desert states of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico-where much of the land had
little value-each received four sections per township for the support of
public schools.
The federal government also granted money, such as distributions of
surplus federal revenue and reimbursements for war expenses, to the states.
Though Congress rarely prescribed that such funds be used only for schools,
education constituted one of the largest expenses of state and local
governments, and so they used federal monies for this purpose. Moreover,
Congress awarded a certain percentage of proceeds from the sale of U.S.
lands within the borders of the new state; the amount ranged from 3 to 10
percent, with most states receiving 5 percent. Twelve states, all of them
west of the Mississippi except Wisconsin, decreed in their constitutions
that income from this fund should flow to the common school fund.
On the surface, the legal and constitutional framework of the new
nation gave federal authorities little say over the financing and
governance of public schools. In the beginning, writing constitutions in
the new territories came to regard the grants as fundamental to statehood.
Many of these leaders hoped that the federal largesse might one day provide
full support for the common schools. In some territories the income from
federal lands granted to the states and then leased or sold to settlers
constituted the only source of state funding. In nearly every state, the
availability of the land grants served to generate revenue for public
institutions.
The dark We of they story is that vast sums were lost through
corruption or mismanagement. States like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois found
it difficult to realize profits from the lands for use in establishing
public schools. Learning from experience, Congress and state constitutions
began to specify prices and conditions of sale for the lands sold to
support schools. The states created supposedly inviolate common school
funds to be allocated to local districts. To receive this money, local
educators were expected to comply with state regulations about the length
of the school term and teacher qualifications.
The gradual evolution toward state control of federal land grants
was more the result of pragmatic experience than the outcome of deliberate
educational policy. Partly because of a strong commitment to states' rights
in the period before the Civil War, Congress stopped short of trying to
control the management of education grants, even when states were abusing
the terms under which they received the grants. In Illinois, for example,
the legislature diverted the funds intended for schools to other purposes.
State officials refused to make the required reports to the U.S. Treasury.
In retaliation, the federal government refused to make payments. Congress
resolved the dispute by repealing the requirement that states make reports.
As years went by, state constitutions in the West became specific
about such bureaucratic matters. The educational provisions that regulated
land grants expanded along with other language controlling the
establishment of schools. Indirectly, the federal government provided
leverage to states for centralizing control over schools. By the end of the
nineteenth century, Congress itself began to set the terms for the sale of
lands to support schools in the enabling acts of new states. It went so far
as to require several new states-Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Washington-to establish free, non-sectarian public school systems as a
condition for admission to the union and receipt of the land grants.
After the mid-century, congressional grants became more generous
and controls over the disposition of land more strict. Citizens in the
northwestern states, profiting from the mistakes of governments to the
east, creatively conserved and used the funds from land sales for the
public good instead of private gain. In states west of the Mississippi,
roughly 10 percent of the school budgets came from the sale of public land
granted for school purposes. This was far less than a full subsidy of
public education, but it was also far from negligible.
The procedure of drafting a constitution and then gaining
congressional approval for statehood prompted the citizens of the
territories to think systematically about public schools. The act of
constructing a frame of government, and of recognizing the place of
education in that structure, gave leaders the opportunity to make choices
among the policies that had been tried in other states. The newer states
could borrow from the experiences of the older ones. In this way, citizens
shaped and reinterpreted a living constitutional tradition, embodied in the
federal and original state constitutions.
The organization of American education grew more complex as public
institutions and the society as a whole expanded in the nineteenth century.
Constitutional provisions on schools reflected this growing complexity. In
the earlier documents, idealistic preambles and brief treatments of federal
land grants seemed enough when settlers were building only log schools in
the wilds of the Midwest. By contrast, when territorial assemblies in the
sparsely populated far Northwest states created constitutions, they wrote
elaborate new bureaucratic structures into their educational provisions.
They were trying to reflect the best examples of institution-building in
their time.
Although more attuned to administrative detail than leaders in the
early years, these educational policy makers also continued to reflect the
ideology that had fueled nearly a century of effort to create common
schools as an essential feature of American government. In 1874, a group of
seventy seven college presidents,and city and state superintendents of
schools issued a statement that described this process of institutional
development:
As a consequence of the perpetual migration from the older sections
of the country to the unoccupied Territories, there are new states in all
degrees of formation, and their institutions present earlier phases of
realization of the distinctive type that are presented in the mature growth
of the system as it exists in the thickly-settled and older States. Thus
States are to be found with little or no provision for education, but they
are rudimentary forms of the American State, and are adopting, as rapidly
as immigration allows them to do so, the type of educational institutions
already defined as the result of American political and social ideas.
While the educational provisions of constitutions of the original
states changed but little, new states aspired to incorporate the most
up-to-date public school systems. They wanted to show themselves to be
enlightened and civilized as they joined the union of states. Accordingly,
they wrote more and more elaborate provisions for education into their
state constitutions.
They codified the institutional structures that had developed
through statutory law in the older states, such as state boards of
education, county and state superintendents, and teacher training
institutions. Turning against earlier traditions of religious instruction,
many prohibited sectarian instruction in public schools and any public aid
to schools affiliated with religious groups. Some constitutional
conventions in the South after the Civil War mandated compulsory school
attendance in their constitutions, even though their states had only
recently established a common school system. An expanding nation composed
of dozens of newly added states became a country in which the new states
could copy from the old and the old were challenged to innovate to match
the progress achieved by younger peers.
Like the land ordinances of the 1780s, state constitutions in the
nineteenth century became much more than documents designed to attract new
residents and win statehood. They were strategies for achieving organized
social life-a political system, a rule of law, a structure of governance,
and adequate financial incentives for creating institutions such as public
schools. Similar to the town and city plats of the developers, but for an
entire system of government, these documents promised that the state on the
periphery would one day match the ideal of statehood most admired by its
predecessors. Reflecting upon this process during the California
constitutional convention of 1849, a delegate quoted the view of Robert J.
Walker, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, who argued:
Each state is deeply interested in the welfare of every other; for the
representatives of the whole regulate by their votes the measures of the
Union, which must be the more happy and prosperous in proportion as its
councils are guided by more enlightened views, resulting from the more
universal diffusion of light, knowledge, and education.
In this process of forming new states, Congress played a subdued
role, setting the terms for territorial government, shaping the
requirements for admission in the enabling acts, approving the new
constitutions, then granting vast amounts of federal land to stimulate
improvements, including public schools, in the fledgling societies on the
frontier.
Nowhere is the perceived importance of schooling more Political
Ideology apparent than in the language used to describe it in state Public
Schooling constitutions. A striking feature of the educational clauses in
nineteenth-century state constitutions is their idealistic tone. With the
exception of language in the declarations of rights, no other sections
contained so much exhortation to virtue. None of the other parts of
government received such broad justifications phrased in the political
discourse of the eighteenth century. Sections on the legislative branch did
not extol the virtues of representative government, nor those on the
judiciary the glories of justice. Clauses on suffrage, militia,
corporations, revenue, and divisions of the executive branch were plain and
businesslike. In contrast, the high-flown justifications of the common
school declared public education to be a shared value. It was a fundamental
guarantee built into government. Like those other guarantees embedded in
the declarations of rights, it was a common good above the squabbles of
political party or sect.
. The Ohio constitution of 1802 reflected this belief by including a
provision for schooling in the declaration of rights itself. Such idealism
about education entered into the debates of constitutional conventions with
an intensity that often reconciled extreme political differences. To mark a
moment of concord between jousting Whigs and Democrats in the Illinois
constitutional convention of 1847, a delegate said, "As the soul rises into
immortality when the body falls into decay and perishes, so does the cause
of education rise in splendor and grandeur above all party schemes and
factions."
In ascribing such importance to public schooling, the framers of
state constitutions were consciously developing a connection between
education and democracy. A resonant political argument, this connection
went back to the rhetoric of the nation's founding fathers. "The business
of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our
country," wrote Benjamin Rush, a Pennsylvanian who signed the Declaration
of Independence and served as an articulate spokesman for republican ideas,
in 1786. "The form of government we have assumed," he continued, "has
created a new class of duties to every American." Rush thought it necessary
to establish "nurseries of wise and good men," a system of education from
common schools through colleges, to ensure the survival of the republic.
(Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986) p 148-155)
**********************************************
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9shhbto5pf9pcpbi6bu5v1243605nqiiab%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2qhhbt4iguic35ar3oklais4aqb0c5q1hu%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=felhbt85trl40j1ih8u3pr8lgb0n3o926c%404ax.com&output=gplain
*****************************************
For those wishing to do independent study on their own, the following is a
good beginning:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Land Ordinance itself:
Excerpt from the Land Ordinance of 1785:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item #1
May 20, 1785
There shall be reserved for the United States out of every
township, the four lots, being numbered 8, 11, 28, 29, and out of every
fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be
found thereon, for future sale. THERE SHALL BE RESERVED THE LOT
N 16, OF EVERY TOWNSHIP, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, WITHIN SAID TOWNSHIP (Emphasis mine); also one third part of all
gold, silver, lead and copper mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of
as Congress shall hereafter direct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person # 1
Slavery and Bondage in the "Empire of Liberty" Paul Finkelman Northwest
Ordinance, Essays on its formulation, provisions and Legacy, Edited by
Frederick D. Williams, Michigan State University Press. (1988) p 75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #2
(Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986) p 148-155)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #3
D. Stickney and Lawrence R. Marcus, THE GREAT EDUCATION DEBATE: WASHINGTON
AND THE SCHOOLS, Springfield, ill. CC Thomas, 1984 page 6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #4
"Public Education in the United States, From Revolution
to Reform, by R. Freeman Butts, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, (1978)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #5
The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman Butts.
Greenwood Press Publishers (1974)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #6
The Development of Public Universities in the Old Northwest, by Jurgen
Herbst, pp 97. Northwest Ordinance, Essays on its formulation, Provisions
and Legacy, edited by Fredick D. Williams Michigan State University press.
(1988)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #7
Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons #8 & #9
Paul Mort, Federal Support for Public Education_, 1936; he's quoting from a
article titled "Federal Financing of Education," by William Russell,
published in "School and Society," August 19, 1933):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #10
Political Inquires to which is Added A Plan for the Establishment of
Schools Throughout the United States, Robert Coram, (1791). American
Political Writing During the Founding Era, 1760- 1805, Volume II, Charles
S. Hyneman, Donald S. Lutz, Liberty Press, Indianapolis, (1983) p. 784
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #11
American Presidents and Education, Maurice R. Berube,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person #12
The Northwest Ordinance as a Constitutional Document, Denis P. Duffey.
Columbia Law Review, Vol 95, May 1995, No.4, p 938)
====================================================
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
-------- --------- ------------ -------
#1
See James A. Curry et al., Constitutional Government: The American
Experience 81 (1989); see also Carter, supra note 4,. at 22 (noting that
the pattern applied to the Northwest Territory also applied largely to the
Southwest Territory and to the territories of Mississippi. Orleans.
Louisiani-Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida); Eblen. supra note 5,
at 241 ("[I)ts provisions were to lay the foundation for the government of
the thirty-one public Lands states and Hawaii."). For the Southwest
Ordinance and other legislative progeny of the Northwest Ordinance, see
Frederick E. Hosen. Unfolding Westward in Treaty and Law: Land Documents in
United States History from the Appalachians to the Pacific, 1785-1934, a 45
(Southwest Ordinance) 59-80 (Mississippi Territorial Act), 84-.89 (Missouri
Territorial Act), 188-97 (Oregon Territorial Act), 197-203 (Minnesota
Territorial Act) (1988).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2
REPORT ON MANUFACTURES, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed, THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER
HAMILTON, Vol 4, New York: GP Putnam & Sons, 1904, pp 151-52)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3
Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates over Original Intent,
Joseph M. Lynch Cornell University Press (1999)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4
Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
291-296
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5
The Writings of James Madison, Edited by Gaillard
Hunt, Volume II, 1783-178,7 G P Putnam/s Sons, New York London 1901, pp
143- 145)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6
The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Annals of
Congress) August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by Gales and
Seaton, Washington, 1834
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#7
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, A
Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers, by Paul
Eidelberg, 1986, University Press of America,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#8
PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING, Cases
and Materials, Second Edition, Paul & Sanford Levinson, Little, Brown and
Company, Boston-Toronto, 1983, pp 9-10.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#9
James Madison, JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, Freeport NY Books
for Libraries Press 1970
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#10
Bicentennial Edition NOTES OF THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787, Reported by James Madison, W.W. Norton & Company New York-London
1987, pp 27- 34
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
#1
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.atheism
Subject: edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:44:26 -0500
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nocfbtcbrfo9aaecg0pdf6r4ie3a4df6ul%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=socfbtk6h334p28lm2aii0jt24tt3chta0%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3vcfbtsljmeek2qcm383kke4j8vj7se94j%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=frhhbt42tqjjdo4sv20ei6urjij5lpis2s%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7mhhbtc0l7hck7g66g745cnbsl368r96qr%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hhhbt0fujrmop7mh730ilddh8131dd1s6%404ax.com&output=gplain
Parks Family
school. It is one of the many reasons we removed our daughter from public school,
and haven't had any of our kids back into them.
When in kindergarten, during her friend's VIP week where she got to share how she
is special, etc., this incident happened. It was her friend's day to bring in her
favorite book to share with her classmates. She brought a small book about Jesus
and the miracle of the loaves and fishes. When she brought her book out, she was
told put her book in her book bag, put her book bag by her coat, don't tell anyone
about it, don't share it. There IS a bias against the Christian faith in public
schools. Christmas is no longer Christmas in school, it's Winter Holiday. Yet,
Kwanza and Hanuka are celebrated without a problem. Halloween is celebrated,
even though many families I know of, do not participate in any manner. The child
who doesn't participate in Halloween, is separated, and kept apart from the
classmates.
My main point was that there is a strong bias against any Christian message of ANY
sorts, even a small book on one thing that Jesus did.
Fran
Michael A. Clem
>"Michael A. Clem" <mc...@vigoris.net> wrote in message
>news:3fa2...@news.vigoris.net...
>
>
>>rex wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In fact, oddly enough, no one in
>>>this thread has specifically agreed with altering the 1st amendment,
>>>and so far a couple seem to just want the feds out of education. That
>>>may explain the points I made above about the lack of the
>>>phrases/proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well, for one thing, it would be very difficult to get a new amendment
>>passed, especially in today's economic climate. I try to put a limit on
>>the number of hopeless causes I take up...
>>
>>
>
>Well, you don't have to "take up" the cause, you can simply verbalize it and
>verbally support it when the subject of schools arises in conversation. If
>it is a "hopeless cause" then it will always be so if no one even begins the
>process of broaching the subject. If our country had government churches
>and I originated the idea of the first amendment, I am certain people would
>write in to tell me it was a hopeless cause. Now, that is what I get for
>the same idea applied to schools.
>
>
>
>
I'm one of the early signers of the Alliance for Separation of School
and State document, from the early 90s. I'm a very big supporter of
getting government out of education. But I'm not a Constitutionalist.
Constitutional amendments don't seem to have been very effective at
limiting government--I'm convinced that it's going to take a much
broader social and cultural change.
On the other hand, while you seem to have some interesting ideas, you
also seem a little too concerned about blowing your own horn. Does it
really matter who originated the idea? Isn't the idea itself more
important?
Michael A. Clem
> I'm one of the early signers of the Alliance for Separation of School
> and State document, from the early 90s. I'm a very big supporter of
> getting government out of education. But I'm not a
> Constitutionalist. Constitutional amendments don't seem to have been
> very effective at limiting government--I'm convinced that it's going
> to take a much broader social and cultural change.
Or, let me put it another way: If you can get enough support for a
Constitutional amendment, you could probably just get enough support to
deprecate public education to very low levels and provide a big push for
privatization, and then there wouldn't be much point to the amendment.
Jeff Strickland
This means the government has an interest in making sure its citizens are
educated.
Michael A. Clem
Exactly. So the government should get out of the education business,
which it doesn't do very well, and allow a free market in education so
that its citizens can get the best possible education.
Jeff Strickland
Education costs money. You and I can flee the crappy government sponsored
educational system if we want, but there are milliions of Americans that can
not flee the system, ever. They are trapped in a broken system - if one
actually buys into the idea that the system is really broken as opposed to
others that provide a replacement experience better and cheaper.
Doing something poorly and expensively is not necessarily the opposite of
doing something better and cheaper, therefore the system may very well not
be broken in its current form, it is only that others can provide the
educational experience better and cheaper. The bottom line is, some of us
can get a vastly superior educational experience than is currently offered,
while others of us are stuck in place and have to make the best of the
experience they are getting.
When government gets out of direct education, the result is that government
will pass out vouchers that parents can use to buy an education for their
kids. The problem then becomes that maybe I think my kids can get the
education I want for them at the local Calvary Chapel or Catholic school, or
Jewish synagouge. The Establishment Clause bunch will scream that government
dollars are being used to fund a religious school, and that this manner of
educating kids is wrong. they will insist on religion neutral private
schools, but the vast majority of private schools get additiional funding
beyond the tuitions received from the church that they are a part of.
Religion funds schools, not the other way around, but the EC crowd doesn't
see it that way.
The main function of government is to educate our children. They ought to be
doing a better job, but they aren't. Part of the reason is that the desires
of society change and the educators have trouble keeping up with our
everchanging whims. My neighbors are content to send their daughters and
sons to school in pants that are too low and blouses that are too high, and
I can't keep my kid covered up because of it. I want the educational system
in my community to merely enforce the rules that they already have on the
books, but apparently I am a minority. If school was going to make mistakes,
and it is inevitable that they will, then they ought to be making those
mistakes on the side of being overly strict in what they allow the children
to do on campus, but from all that I see on my local high school campus, it
is an apparent free-for-all. Even some of the teachers do not dress
approopriately, that is they do not dress in accordance with the dress code
that is already established.
Government can not educate our children if they can't even establish the
standards of behavior that are needed to maintain an educational atmosphere.
Stainless Steel Streetrat
writes:
><snipped diatribe>
>So you've been officially elected in this NG
Which newsgroup is that, (for the record<wg>)?
Newsgroups:
misc.education.home-school.christian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics
.usa.constitution,alt.politics,alt.education,misc.education
Stainless Steel Streetrat
-----------------------------------
"Living is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
CR
> I'm one of the early signers of the Alliance for Separation of School
> and State document, from the early 90s. I'm a very big supporter of
> getting government out of education.
Would that give the federal government the power to tell states they
can't have their own public state schools? I'm all for privitizing
schools, but only if the states decide to do it for themselves. Giving
the federal government even more power would be a big mistake, in my
opinion.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:3knbqv4t34tcj2i33...@4ax.com...
>> bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>> >On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:42:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
>wrote:
>> >No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to the
>> >Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
>> >
>> >What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative branches, are
>> >those powers not emmuerated to them.
>>
>> False. Clearly, it is within their power, because they do it.
>
>That they do it, does not mean it is within their power enumerated by the
>Constitution. That you will just lay down and accept what they do as being
>right, reflects your own weakness.
I did not indicate any opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of
their power. I merely indicated that the fact that they did it
indicates that they have the power to do it. That is what "have the
power" means.
>> Three powers not enumerated is that the president shall be able to
>> eat, breath and take a shit. Does that mean that he doesn't have the
>> power to do so?
>
>You can do better than that bob. Show us where theConstitution enumerates
>the use of using taxpayer money on public education.
Show us where it enumerates that the President has the right to take a
shit.
Bob LeChevalier
>news:Yd7pb.1969$zx3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com>" <bma<rem> wrote in message
>> news:3fa4b...@127.0.0.1...
>> > I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
>> > violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect establish
>> > atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
>> > over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
>> > creatures). These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they cannot
>> > be falsified and are simply held on faith.
>>
>> This is just dumb. Not teaching religion doesn't teach that there is no
>> religion any more than schools promote satanism because they don't say it's
>> bad.
>
>Not only is it not taught but at gun point others are prohibited from
>supporting rival views.
Tell that to the Catholic church, which seem to have no trouble
teaching a "rival view" in a multitude of schools, with nary a gun to
be seen.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:oh9aqv8b69v7rdcb6...@4ax.com...
>> "Brian Mason" <bma<rem>s...@itassociates.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
>> >violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect establish
>> >atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
>> >creatures).
>>
>> Non-recognition of one belief system does not constitute recognition
>> of the opposite belief system.
>
>Not only is it not recognized but at gun point others are prohibited from
>supporting rival views.
Of course they can. That is what religious private schools are for.
The public schools are not for the expression of any religious
teachings at all.
>It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
>themselves,
They can decide whatever they want to believe. They cannot TEACH
religion in the public schools.
>expressions of any religion other than Atheism is forbidden.
False.
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/religion/relig7.html
>> >In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
>> >evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e. cross,
>> >ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
>>
>> No "non-evidentiary belief system" which is a religion can be
>> supported at all, competing or otherwise. However non-religious
>> ethical or moral systems (which might or might not be considered
>> belief systems) aren't religions, and so might be permitted (hence we
>> allow patriotism, which is such a belief system involving the goodness
>> if not superiority of our country).
>
>A competing view of patriotism (i.e. flag burning) is allowed.
It wasn't allowed until relatively recently.
But that is irrelevant, because it isn't a religion. Flag burning is
allowed as free speech, not a free religious expression.
>I am calling willingness to use force to support views which cannot be
>falsified a religion.
Your unilateral redefinition of words matters only to you. That is
not a definition of "religion" to anyone else.
Bob LeChevalier
>> > evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
>> cross,
>> > ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
>>
>> School is not a forum for religion, that's why you have church. Please go to
>> the church of your choice and leave the school system for what it was
>> intended: education.
>
>So return the public school monies to parents and let them choose.
Why? It is not the parents' tax money. It is the public's tax money.
Carol Lee Smith
> I'm one of the early signers of the Alliance for Separation of School
> and State document, from the early 90s. I'm a very big supporter of
> getting government out of education.
Perhas you might be willing to answer the questions I previously asked.
Were schools to be privatized, who would pay?
What about those who could not afford to pay?
Bob LeChevalier
>in article 3fa5f...@127.0.0.1, Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com> at
>bma<rem wrote on 11/3/03 1:38 AM:
>>> mostly being schools that still have school prayer. The problem is that
>> you
>>> hear about every instance of a student getting the prayer editted out of
>>> their speach, but rarely hear about all of the schools that violate the
>>> establishment clause by playing pralers over the intercom or leading
>> prayers
>>> at football games. If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
>>> policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
>>
>> Not only is it not taught but at gun point others are prohibited from
>> supporting rival views.
>
>Ridiculous. Where is this happening? Specifically? Where are teachers being
>forced to teach atheism *at gun point*? Name your sources, and they need to
>have places, names, and dates.
He's using libertarian-speak, wherein anything that government does is
"coercion at the point of a gun" because of the "government monopoly
on force", i.e. the fact that police officers may use arms when
someone resists arrest for violating the laws.
This of course has little relevance to reality.
Carol Lee Smith
Thank you.
Even though there are portions of the DoI which do not apply in today's
world, education does promote the general welfare.
Gray Shockley
(in message <3fa4b...@127.0.0.1>):
> I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
> violation of the establishment clause.
Please keep this (alt.education) newsgroup apprised on your progress with
your lawsuit.
> Public schools in effect establish
> atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural creatures)
> over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra natural
> creatures).
Let's take a look at this last sentence and see what it says without all the
qualifiers:
Public schools establish atheism
over other religions .
So. Correct?
> These
"These" what? To what is "these referring"?
> are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they cannot
> be falsified
So, again:
These are religions . . . in that they cannot
be falsified and are simply held on faith.
So you'e saying that religions "cannot be falsified"?
> and are simply held on faith.
Really a strange "argument".
> In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e. cross,
> ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
So you're saying that ignoring religion is religious?
As always, I tend to be amused at people who think that parents and churches
are doing such a horrid job that the government (public) schools are their
only hope.
Gray Shockley
-----------------------------------------
Becareful of what you wish
for; you might get it.
Info Junkie
>On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Michael A. Clem wrote:
>
>> I'm one of the early signers of the Alliance for Separation of School
>> and State document, from the early 90s. I'm a very big supporter of
>> getting government out of education.
>
>Perhas you might be willing to answer the questions I previously asked.
>
>Were schools to be privatized, who would pay?
Not meant to be facticious, but who paid prior to the federal goverment using
federal taxpayer monies?
IOW, the states, free of federal influence, would be free to revise their own
educational "standards", including removal or embracment of such influences as
the NEA.
Since competittion should be between states, commisions such as the Council of
Governors could decide to change the "rules" of competition. Such "rules" could
include specifying a set amount of monies spent on teacher salaries* in an
effort to capture the "best", and instead focus on percentage of students
passing within a set GPA, etc.
*Not meaning to imply teachers are or are not paid well. Rather, removing the
influence of the richer states that can afford to lure the "more qualified"
teachers from the poorer states that can not afford them at the "richer" states
salaries.
Experimentation by each state would, over time, bear out the best "method" of
teaching...even if that meant no specific "method" at all...other that removal
of placing children in a grade according to age.
I've no doubt there are those that could provide answers with far more wisdom
than me.
>What about those who could not afford to pay?
This would be up to the state legislatures to find what its citizens consider it
highest priority, and fund it accordingly. They may find that its citizens think
that some programs, even non-cirriculum-based programs, should be funded at a
much lower level...if at all. Some may encourage home-schooling as a means to
reduce costs, such as infrastructure and trasnportation.
Despite "the answer(s)", it won't happen "overnite".
Love Not War
Intriguing idea!
Info Junkie
>For bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
>
>Let me see if I understand this:
"snipped" as this has been answered in another thread.
Gray Shockley
>>>> form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson (1800)
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:36:11 -0600, bucke...@nospam.net wrote
(in message <g7o7qv0hp2ucn04d6...@4ax.com>):
> The above is taken out of context and improperly cited as well. The above
> refers to slavery.
No, it specifically refers to religion [although I doubt it can be completely
understood without a really good knowledge of the XYZ affair].
Full text of letter of Sep. 23, 1800, from Thomas
Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush follows:
--------------------------------------------------------
_To Dr. Benjamin Rush_
_Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800_
DEAR SIR, -- I have to acknolege the receipt of your favor of
Aug. 22, and to congratulate you on the healthiness of your city.
Still Baltimore, Norfolk & Providence admonish us that we are not
clear of our new scourge. When great evils happen, I am in the habit
of looking out for what good may arise from them as consolations to
us, and Providence has in fact so established the order of things, as
that most evils are the means of producing some good. The yellow
fever will discourage the growth of great cities in our nation, & I
view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the
liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but
the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the
others, with more health, virtue & freedom, would be my choice.
I agree with you entirely, in condemning the mania of giving
names to objects of any kind after persons still living. Death alone
can seal the title of any man to this honor, by putting it out of his
power to forfeit it. There is one other mode of recording merit,
which I have often thought might be introduced, so as to gratify the
living by praising the dead. In giving, for instance, a commission
of chief justice to Bushrod Washington, it should be in consideration
of his integrity, and science in the laws, and of the services
rendered to our country by his illustrious relation, &c. A
commission to a descendant of Dr. Franklin, besides being in
consideration of the proper qualifications of the person, should add
that of the great services rendered by his illustrious ancestor, Bn
Fr, by the advancement of science, by inventions useful to man, &c.
I am not sure that we ought to change all our names. And during the
regal government, sometimes, indeed, they were given through
adulation; but often also as the reward of the merit of the times,
sometimes for services rendered the colony. Perhaps, too, a name
when given, should be deemed a sacred property.
I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not
forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it,
that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present
dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease
neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many
to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it
would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms
against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be
softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro'
the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country
threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their
opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets
against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison,
&c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to
rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison,
for they are men of truth.
But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to
paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and
printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you
mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I
fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom.
You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state.
I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our
state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to
see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at
Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But
nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I
wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection.
Adieu.
--------------------------------------------------------
Gray Shockley
> Yes Thomas Jefferson did agree with public schooling...to be handled and
> financed within the state's own laws. You've not shown Thomas Jefferson
> desired usage of federal taxpayer monies to fund public schools in all
> states. Here is where YOU take his beliefs "out of context" that you
> imply otherwise.
Jefferson lived in his own lifetime. Perhaps a rather "obvious" statement
but, perhaps, one that we need to remember, at least, occasionally.
The main excursions of the federal government into the traditionally "state"
governmental schools are, pretty much, a re-action to the states of the
Rebellion which--in reality--started to end in 1964 [even more so than in
1954].
Your argument makes as much sense as the "strict constitutionist" - with whom
I argued several years ago - that the Army and Navy were "constitutional" but
the Air Force was not as it was not mentioned in the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson was--to me--one of the greatest individuals who has ever
lived - warts and all - and, in my opinion - we see further because we stand
on his (and others') shoulders.
But honoring him is different than worshipping him.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
USMC being, of course, in DeptNav.
Info Junkie
>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:42:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to the
>>Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
>>
>>What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative branches, are
>>those powers not emmuerated to them.
>
>False. Clearly, it is within their power, because they do it.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for
any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional
law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would
be had the statute not been enacted." (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
Volume 16, Section 177)
I guess this principle has no meaning, eh?
>>One of the powers not enumerated is the
>>usage of federal taxpayer monies for public education to all states.
>
>Three powers not enumerated is that the president shall be able to
>eat, breath and take a shit. Does that mean that he doesn't have the
>power to do so?
Fallacies of distraction are not condusive to your argument.
FWIW, the President does have the power of the Executive Order to implement such
"acts" for those within the Executive Branch if he wishes to do so .:-)
OTOH, If the POTUS doesn't have the *power* to do the "acts" you noted, then
he's dead, and it's a moot point anyway . :-)
>>Else, you are content to disregard the principles applied and intented by those
>>that founded/framed and ratified the US Constitution.
>
>I know how they applied the Constitution at that time, which gives a
>good idea what they intended. I trust the USSC to judge what they
>intended more than I trust an imbecile like you.
AH, so more ad hominem, but little more. FWIW, since you claim "you know", tell
us all in this NG how "at the time" of the ratification of the Constitution,
"they applied" the use of federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in
all states?
If you wish to include the USSC, tell us also the case that confirmed such usage
of these federla taxpayer monies to fund public education on all states won't
you?
>>>>Downplay it and "twist it" in whatever way makes you feel comfortable Bob, yet
>>>>a geat deal of these Billions spent on public education in all states uses
>>>>federal taxpayer monies,
>>>
>>>So what? Nothing prevents the states from accepting money from
>>>outside sources, with or without strings, in order to fund legitimate
>>>state programs.
>>
>>I would agree...EXCEPT... "outside sources" do not include the federal
>>government, as unlike "outside sources", they are not limited by the enumerated
>>powers delegated to them by the states.
>
>The states are not limited in who they can accept money from.
States may be limited by there own Constitution and/or laws.
>The feds are not limited so long as they can shoehorn the
>appropriation under some clause of the constitution liberally
>interpreted.
IOW, "implied" powers that were rejected at the time of ratification of the US
Constitution. Glad you've admitted it.
>They do it; it has stood the test of time. Live with it. Or sue if
>you prefer; I won't hold my breath waiting for them to laugh you out
>of court, but they will do so all the same.
The "pendulum" may swing more...we'll have to wiat and see. OTOH, since I've no
school-age children, I would not be considered to have "standing".
>>OTOH, States may in fact be may be limited by whom they may "accepting money
>>from" wrt "outside sources" based on their own State Constitutions.
>
>They possibly could be if their constitutions said so, but they are
>not, so their constitutions obviously don't.
States too have politicians that may believe the "implied" concept, and ignore
their own laws.
>>>>and whether it is done so through one or a number of
>>>>"specific" programs is irrelevent.
>>>
>>>If the programs are within the Constitutional purview, then the
>>>niceties of the constitution are met.
>>
>>Please Bob, show us where the "Constitutional purview" originated and may be
>>found to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states.
>
>I have. You don't like my answer. Tough.
No Bob, your answer said "IF", not "where", "originated" nor "found". Else,
you've failed to post an answer to that requested. If that is what you mean by
"tough", then you have no answer. Understood.
>>OTOH, when the judges that decide that "constitutional purview" are the same
>>type that prefer to "follow the elections returns", rather than the principles
>>of constitutional law, one must question their "good Behaviour" and their
>>dedication to uphold their oath of office.
>
>Then maybe the Congress will impeach them. But I won't hold my breath
>for that either.
When judges are not filibustered even at the appelate level, changes may return
to what the ratifiers meant...and it wasn't "implied" powers.
>>>They haven't been challenged, and YOU surely haven't the arguments
>>>with which to challenge them. Therefore they are constitutional.
>>
>>Then maybe you should read such information that many lawyers and judges use wrt
>>the principles of law, such as those found in the American Jurisprudence
>>volumes. Unfortunately, there are too many that wish to ignore such principles
>>and may be found sitting behind the primary desk within a courtroom.
>
>Your unsupported opinion is worthless (and support in this case means
>a court decision agreeing with you). You aren't trained in the law,
>and have zero credibility in this matter.
That you invoke fallacies of "changing the subject", shows much more about your
own credibility than mine.
Else, are you claiming that:
1. information such as the American Jurisprudence volumes do not show the
principles of law? OR
2. neither judges nor lawyers use them? OR
3. Judges have not ignored such principles?
4. You have knowledge about what legal training I may or may not have had?
WRT a "court case", have you found any that have accepted to hear whether
federal taxpayer monies may be used to fund public education in all states? Have
you found any that have decided that it IS constitutional?
If not, it appears your admiration for jailson may need to be "checked", as he
claims it has:
"The judges and Justices, the scholars already have" (decided)
(Message-ID: <2dkcqvso690m6lcv9...@4ax.com>)
Yet why didn't he cite the case? LOL
>>>I haven't conceded any points in this matter, and don't expect to.
>>>You might have addressed the price of beans and baloney in Iraq for
>>>all I care. Your declaration of prior victory is meaningless.
>>
>>No one asked you to "concede any points", Bob, nor have I "declared victory".
>>OTOH, when one posts a response without fully reading the material presented, it
>>may make you look, well...foolish by your uniformed response. And it did.
>
>Why should I read your garbage. You cannot prove your case. You are
>ignorant and untrained in the law. Your opinion is irrelevant to
>anyone but you.
You may wish to read what you write before you post and answer your own
questions. No one is forcing you to read to respond to my posts.
That you have no knowledge of what legal training I may or may not have had
follows the similar illogical concepts of "implied" powers...both make
assumptions without full understanding of the material available, nor cares
about the intent to which the originating parties agreed.
>>>>>He doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does anyone else. You have
>>>>>no credibility on this matter; he does.
>>>>
>>>>So you've been officially elected in this NG as spokesperson for jailson alias
>>>>"buckeye" and "anyone else" other than. yourself? Just based on that pompous
>>>>and arrogant attitude alone, I demand a "recall" : -)
>>>
>>>Screw you.
>>
>>Ah, the "mature" response from Bob. It is apparent then, you can not "speak" for
>>anyone other than yourself. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>Of course not. How could I speak for anyone else.
Then your assertion;that "(jailson) doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does
anyone else", was not made by you or was your assertion a lie?
>jalison doesn't claim to speak for anyone else either. He generally
>merely presents organized evidence generated by people qualified to
>opine, knowing that his opinion doesn't matter either.
I never stated nor implied that jailson "claim(ed) to speak for anyone" but
himself...but you did make that assertion..for him and for "anyone else".
OTOH, "organized" doesn't mean "constitutional". Should one look at ALL the
facts, not just those jailson wishes to provide that suit his opinions, one may
easily see that his "organized" material and his presentation of the same
equates to a "snow job"., including his fallacies and assumptions.
This is shown time and again as he invokes fallacies to avoids answering
questions he knows he can not truthfully without admitting he's erred, or
attempts to "bury" his opposition with the same "cut-and-paste" comments, in an
attempt to either bore the NG readers into submission and acceptance of his
"data" (that agrees with his opinion) or even to impress some by it's sheer
volume.(as you seems to have done, i.e. "organized").
Jailson's a leftist-liberal IMO, that has supported time and again the "implied
powers" concept and the "power grab" by FDR to accomplish that which the
ratifiers never intended, and he refuses to admit..
Yet, I've given jailson credit for matters he appears to be quite knowledgable
about, and I am not. An enumerated power for Congress to use federal taxpayer
monies to fund public education in all states is not one of them.
Info Junkie
>For bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
>
>Let me see if I understand this:
>
"snip" of the same 'ole baloney you've posted time and again, and you use to
"bury" those who oppose you with "spam" in an effort to avoid questions.
Understood.
Previously answered in another thread
Info Junkie
>For bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
>
>Let me see if I understand this:
In response to my posts, you've posted EXACTLY the same posts in at least five
other posts. LOL. Your fallacies are hilarious.
I answered your post(snipped below) in ONE other thread. Unlike you, I've no
need to re-post the EXACT same material in response to five of your threads.
ROTFLMHO
Michael A. Clem
Would *what* give the federal government power over the states? Rex's proposed
amendment? You'd have to ask him. Getting government out of education? I
didn't specify any particular level of government--all levels of government
should get out of education.
One of the interesting things about the public school system, at least in the
United States, is that it is still primarily at the state government level.
Sure, federal involvement has increased, but is still less than the state's
involvement.
I agree that I would rather not give the federal government more power over
the states. In general, a greater decentralization of the educational system
will give us better results, but I think full privatization will provide the
best results.
Michael A. Clem
Lee Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Michael A. Clem wrote:
>
> > I'm one of the early signers of the Alliance for Separation of School
> > and State document, from the early 90s. I'm a very big supporter of
> > getting government out of education.
>
> Perhas you might be willing to answer the questions I previously asked.
>
> Were schools to be privatized, who would pay?
The same people who pay now, but it would go directly to the schools and bypass
the "middlemen" of politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests.
> What about those who could not afford to pay?
It's funny that most poor people manage to pay for housing and cars, and to
clothe and feed their children, but they have trouble providing health care and
education to their kids. It's simple, really. Government interference in
education has raised the costs of education, by reducing competition and by
discouraging incentives for innovation, diversity, and efficiency.
So with a fully-privatized system, more poor people would be able to afford
education for their kids, as schools would have more incentives to provide
cost-efficient options and alternatives for the poor.
For those few who might still be unable to pay for even the lower-cost
alternatives, I suppose that caring and compassionate people like friends,
family, churches, private charities, and even communities might come up with
voluntary, noncoercive ways to pay for or provide educational services. Why,
you might even have businesses and wealthy people donate or provide
scholarships.
Really, a little imagination and compassion will go a lot farther than
coercion and compulsion. But if you really don't trust people to care about
education, then why are so many people concerned in the first place about
providing education (even if they are supporting a wrongful means of providing
it)?
Michael A. Clem
>
> "Michael A. Clem" <mc...@vigoris.net> wrote in message
> news:3fa6...@news.vigoris.net...
> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > >One of the main functions of government is to "promote the general
> welfare."
> > >This means the government has an interest in making sure its citizens are
> > >educated.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Exactly. So the government should get out of the education business,
> > which it doesn't do very well, and allow a free market in education so
> > that its citizens can get the best possible education.
> >
>
>
> Education costs money. You and I can flee the crappy government sponsored
> educational system if we want, but there are milliions of Americans that can
> not flee the system, ever. They are trapped in a broken system - if one
> actually buys into the idea that the system is really broken as opposed to
> others that provide a replacement experience better and cheaper.
>
> Doing something poorly and expensively is not necessarily the opposite of
> doing something better and cheaper, therefore the system may very well not
> be broken in its current form, it is only that others can provide the
> educational experience better and cheaper. The bottom line is, some of us
> can get a vastly superior educational experience than is currently offered,
> while others of us are stuck in place and have to make the best of the
> experience they are getting.
Exactly the point. The poor are hurt the worst by the public education
system. I'm guessing that you think that if the government were not offering
public education, then the poor would have no education at all?
But as you point out, education costs money. Where does the government get
the money to operate the school system? From taxpayers. Thus, the public
educational system is not merely a safety net, but a system that is actively
changing the economy, and redistributing money to the educational system.
Without the public school system, the money would still exist, but could be
spent directly to schools, instead of being taxed and distributed. Then, like
any other business, schools would have stronger incentives to provide better
educational services to attract customers, else they would go out of business.
More importantly, schools would have incentives to innovate and diversify,
providing a variety of different educational services to provide for a variety
of different needs, including the education of the poor. It's no accident that
people like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and Sam Walton made fortunes by
reducing the cost of their products so that more lower-income people could
afford to buy them.
> When government gets out of direct education, the result is that government
> will pass out vouchers that parents can use to buy an education for their
> kids.
Why are vouchers inevitable if the government gets out of direct education?
> The main function of government is to educate our children.
That's news to me. Then maybe the government ought to get out of the
rights-protection business and disband the police, military, and courts. Not
to mention everything else the government is involved in, like welfare,
retirement planning, health care, roads, etc.
> They ought to be
> doing a better job, but they aren't. Part of the reason is that the desires
> of society change and the educators have trouble keeping up with our
> everchanging whims.
The main reason that they aren't doing a better job is because public schools
are coercively funded, controlled by politicians and bureaucrats, and heavily
influenced by special interests. Since parents and guardians don't pay
directly for education, their interests and concerns have become much less
important than the politics of the educational system. Educational quality
takes a back seat to control of textbooks, evolution vs creationism, corporal
punishment, dress codes, religious conflicts, free speech, privacy, meals,
gender issues, sexuality, self-esteem, athletics and other extracurricular
activities, race, bussing, and of course, getting more money from the
government. Just about everything except for education, really.
>
> Government can not educate our children if they can't even establish the
> standards of behavior that are needed to maintain an educational atmosphere.
Because government is an agency that operates by coercion, instead of by
persuasion, there are many things that private businesses can do that
governments should not do, reasonable things on the surface, but because they
are backed by force, the government cannot do them without being unfair and
inconsistent, or even violating rights.
No, the main purpose of government is not education. Since the primary tool
of government is coercion, it should only be employed for the purpose of
countering coercion, protecting people from criminals and invaders, and
enforcing contracts. In short, the only legitimate purpose of government is
the protection of rights. Anything else that the government does is
necessarily a violation of rights, because the government's actions are backed
by coercion or the threat of coercion. Forcibly providing education is not the
best way to encourage educational excellence.
Michael A. Clem
wrote:
>
> The problem with your theory is, the founders DID SEPARATE church and
> state. They DID NOT SEPARATE school and state, in fact DID the exact
> opposite See the Northwest ordinance.
> See some of the original state constitutions.
The problem with *your* theory is that you want to force us to accept
agreements made by dead people many generations ago. Things are changeable and
many things have changed considerably since the founding of the U.S., at all
levels. People all over have been unwilling to merely accept what was passed
onto them. They weren't happy with British rule over the colonies, so they
revolted. They weren't happy with the Articles of Confederation, so they went
back into convention and came up with the Constitution. Since then, several
amendments to the Constitution have been added on. Why not another one like
Rex is suggesting?
As you say, the founders did not separate school and state, as they should
have, but education has changed since then, too. The founders didn't have the
public school system that we have today. I don't think that they would be very
happy with our system, and would probably want to change it, just as many
people today want to change it. There are very few people who are happy with
the status quo: the real argument is not IF we should change the public school
system, but HOW we should change it.
Bob LeChevalier
>In message <f0e7qvgjchd7jgrka...@4ax.com>, bucke...@nospam.net
>wrote:
>> The problem with your theory is, the founders DID SEPARATE church and
>> state. They DID NOT SEPARATE school and state, in fact DID the exact
>> opposite See the Northwest ordinance.
>> See some of the original state constitutions.
>
> The problem with *your* theory is that you want to force us to accept
>agreements made by dead people many generations ago.
Our legal system depends on precisely that. Without such acceptance,
we would have anarchy.
>Since then, several
>amendments to the Constitution have been added on. Why not another one like
>Rex is suggesting?
Because we don't want such a thing? Because the tradition in our
society is NOT to amend the Constitution lightly.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:03:09 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:42:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to the
>>>Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
>>>
>>>What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative branches, are
>>>those powers not emmuerated to them.
>>
>>False. Clearly, it is within their power, because they do it.
>
>"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
>and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for
>any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
>not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional
>law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
>Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would
>be had the statute not been enacted." (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
>Volume 16, Section 177)
>
>I guess this principle has no meaning, eh?
It has meaning in court. But you apparently consider the opinions of
lawyers and courts "irrelevant".
>>>Else, you are content to disregard the principles applied and intented by those
>>>that founded/framed and ratified the US Constitution.
>>
>>I know how they applied the Constitution at that time, which gives a
>>good idea what they intended. I trust the USSC to judge what they
>>intended more than I trust an imbecile like you.
>
>AH, so more ad hominem, but little more. FWIW, since you claim "you know", tell
>us all in this NG how "at the time" of the ratification of the Constitution,
>"they applied" the use of federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in
>all states?
They didn't directly, and I did not claim that they did.
>>>I would agree...EXCEPT... "outside sources" do not include the federal
>>>government, as unlike "outside sources", they are not limited by the enumerated
>>>powers delegated to them by the states.
>>
>>The states are not limited in who they can accept money from.
>
>States may be limited by there own Constitution and/or laws.
State Constitutions seldom have limits built into them like those
built into the Federal Constitution.
>>The feds are not limited so long as they can shoehorn the
>>appropriation under some clause of the constitution liberally
>>interpreted.
>
>IOW, "implied" powers that were rejected at the time of ratification of the US
>Constitution.
Implied powers have been accepted by the USSC from the early days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
>>>Please Bob, show us where the "Constitutional purview" originated and may be
>>>found to use federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states.
>>
>>I have. You don't like my answer. Tough.
>
>No Bob, your answer said "IF", not "where", "originated" nor "found". Else,
>you've failed to post an answer to that requested. If that is what you mean by
>"tough", then you have no answer.
I don't have to answer to YOUR satisfaction. You have no standing.
>>Then maybe the Congress will impeach them. But I won't hold my breath
>>for that either.
>
>When judges are not filibustered even at the appelate level, changes may return
>to what the ratifiers meant...and it wasn't "implied" powers.
Their actions indicate otherwise.
>>Your unsupported opinion is worthless (and support in this case means
>>a court decision agreeing with you). You aren't trained in the law,
>>and have zero credibility in this matter.
>
>That you invoke fallacies of "changing the subject", shows much more about your
>own credibility than mine.
>
>Else, are you claiming that:
>
>1. information such as the American Jurisprudence volumes do not show the
>principles of law? OR
In case of a conflict between the book and the courts, the courts win.
>4. You have knowledge about what legal training I may or may not have had?
It is obvious in your "arguments".
>WRT a "court case", have you found any that have accepted to hear whether
>federal taxpayer monies may be used to fund public education in all states?
There have been court cases regarding Federal aid to states for
education. None have challenged its constitutionality to my
knowledge, but the courts have ruled on the law without ruling it
unconstitutional.
>>>Ah, the "mature" response from Bob. It is apparent then, you can not "speak" for
>>>anyone other than yourself. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>>Of course not. How could I speak for anyone else.
>
>Then your assertion;that "(jailson) doesn't give a shit what you think; nor does
>anyone else", was not made by you or was your assertion a lie?
It was a statement of my opinion.
>Jailson's a leftist-liberal IMO,
I don't give a shit about your opinion, or what cubbyhole you wish to
categorize him as.
>that has supported time and again the "implied powers" concept
Because such has been a basic constitutional principle since the
earliest days of our nation.
Brian Mason
Yes, and you still must tithe to the Athiests.
Brian Mason
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, it was written:
>
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message> > > ... If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
> > > policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
>
> > supporting rival views.
>
> school policy being the teaching that there is no god"
>
> Apparently you aren't able to do that.
>
Forbiding offical expression and some student expression of rival religious
views is teaching by example.
> Why should your opinions be given any credibility when you can't provide
> evidence?
>
> > The prayer leaders are sought out and forced to support
> Athiesm [sic] at gunpoint.
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
> I haven't even seen any ordinary evidence yet.
That official prayers in schools is forbidden is common knowledge. That
purely student organized prayers may be forbidden maybe not is less common
knowledge. That uncertainty has a chilling effect is inately understood.
Common knowledge. I will not even bother to cite cases.
>
> > It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
> > themselves, expressions of any religion other than Atheism is
forbidden.
>
> Provide proof that there are any inappropriate expressions of atheism in
> the public schools.
>
> > Having no evidence to support their views, of course Athiests [sic]
> > use force against their rivals as did Christians when they had the
> > power to do so
>
> Examples of this "force" ???
So you claim that a high school principal can organize a five minute non
denominational prayer at the beginning of school ? That a teacher can post
the ten commandments in a classroom? That students can organize a prayer at
commencement without fear of it being banned by a court?
Provide evidence of this occurring in the US.
>
>
>
Brian Mason
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:34jcqvgclcb2kqv16...@4ax.com...> From 1789 to the present thousands of judges and justices that have sat on
> the three levels of state courts and the three levels of federal courts
> didn't discover what you and a few ultra libbertarians and ultra
> conservatives think you have discovered. Is this your position?
>
> I will ask you a few questions:
> How many certificates, diplomas, or degrees do you have recognition of
your
> successful completion of courses of study in law or law related topics?
>
> How many lawyers have you worked closely with or been associated with?
>
> How many lawyers have you helped prepare for court and then assisted in
> court as they went about their professional duties?
>
> How many cases have you tried?
>
> How many times have you been elected to a state bench or been appointed to
> a state or bench?
>
> Those thousands of judges and justices had law degrees, passed whatever
bar
> exam that was required, practiced law, kept up with the required CLE each
> year (Continuing Legal Education). They probably published some articles
> along the way for law journals or law reviews, was elected or appointed to
> the bench, and in the case of those above their initial elected or
> appointed position moved up through the levels till they reached the final
> position held by them before retirement or death.
>
> They had the legal education and the legal experience,
argument from authority, garden variety logical fallacy
neither of which you
> have.
ad hominem, garden variety logical fallacy
>
> THUS, let the readers decide.
> The judges and Justices, the scholars already have.
>
> *********************************
> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
>
> SCHOOL: The PBS Series
> Premieres September 3-4, 2001, 9-11 P.M. ET (check local listings)
> Series narrated by Academy Award winner Meryl Streep
>
> SCHOOL: The Story of American Public Education, is a dramatic four-part
> documentary series that chronicles the development of our nation's public
> education system from the late 1770s to the 21st century. Produced by
Stone
> Lantern Films, and presented by KCET/Hollywood, SCHOOL (narrated by
Academy
> Award winner Meryl Streep) recaptures the idealism of the early proponents
> of public education and continues with an unflinching look at the
> experiments and challenges that contribute to the climate in the classroom
> today. For episode descriptions and video clips, visit the program
> descriptions in this section.
>
>
> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/program.html
>
> Episode 1 - The Common School (1770 - 1890)
> In the aftermath of the Revolution, a newly independent America came
> face-to-face with one of its most daunting challenges: how to build a
> united nation out of 13 colonies with little in common. Many citizens
> believed that education held the key. This episode profiles the passionate
> crusade launched by Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann and others to create a
> common system of tax-supported schools that would mix people of different
> backgrounds and reinforce the bonds that tie Americans together. Would the
> grand experiment, with all of its flaws, succeed?
> View a video clip from the series
>
> Episode 2 - As American As Public School (1900 - 1950)
>
> Episode 3 - Equality (1950 - 1980)
>
> Episode 4 - The Bottom Line (1980 - the present)
>
> *****************************************
>
> (1) http://snurl.com/2t5x
>
> (2) http://snurl.com/2t5z
>
> (3) http://snurl.com/2tfi
>
> (4) http://snurl.com/2tfo
>
> (5) Google searches using the following:
> jal...@cox.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education, schools
> http://snurl.com/2sz6
>
> (6) bucke...@nospam.net, bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie), education,
> schools
> http://snurl.com/2sz7
>
> The greastest evidence that can be offered is offered by me
> It's called reality. It's called what is.
>
> Get over it.
>
Brian Mason
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:quvcqvgnl3dmldcgc...@4ax.com...
> "Brian Mason" <bma<rem>s...@itassociates.com> wrote:
>
> >:|
> >:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:qg4aqvofeqlkqejsh...@4ax.com...
> >:|> "Brian Mason" <bma<rem>s...@itassociates.com> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education
as a
> >:|> >:|violation of the establishment clause.
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|> The founders separated church and state, they didn't separate
education
> >:|> and state, in fact did the exact opposite.
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|Congress was not given the education power. That was left to the
states.
> >:|The 14th amendment extended constitutional protections to individuals v
> >:|states.
>
>
> Short General History of The Federal Government and Education
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm
>
> *****************************************
> NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
> #1
> From: buc...@exis.net
> Newsgroups:
> misc.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.atheism
> Subject: edu.govt.taxes, Northwest Ordinance
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:44:26 -0500
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nocfbtcbrfo9aaecg0pdf6r4ie3a4df6ul%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> #2
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=socfbtk6h334p28lm2aii0jt24tt3chta0%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> #3
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3vcfbtsljmeek2qcm383kke4j8vj7se94j%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> #4
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=frhhbt42tqjjdo4sv20ei6urjij5lpis2s%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> #5
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7mhhbtc0l7hck7g66g745cnbsl368r96qr%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> ********************************************************
> #6
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hhhbt0fujrmop7mh730ilddh8131dd1s6%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> Even before the federal constitution was ratified, the story
> of the federal government's involvement with schools began with the
> Ordinance of 1785, which was passed by the congress established under the
> Articles of Confederation. The ordinance specified how property lines in
> the western territory should "be measured with a chain ... plainly marked
> by chaps on the trees, and exactly described on a plat, whereon shall be
> noted ... all mines, salt-springs, salt-licks, and mill-seats." The
> document stipulated that land should be divided into townships, each six
> miles square and subdivided into 36 lots each a mile square. In
> businesslike fashion, it established the terms of the deed between the
> United States and citizens buying lands from the public domain. One clause
> linked the congressional ordinance explicitly to schooling: "There shall
be
> reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public
> schools, within the said township." The intention of the framers was that
> the land would be sold to settlers and the income from the sales would be
> used to support the school.
> Two years later, the Confederation Congress passed the Ordinance of
> 1787. This measure went further than its predecessor by setting the rules
> for governing the territory northwest of the Ohio River. The ordinance
> stipulated a plan for a governor, general assembly, and courts for each
> territory to be created from that immense wilderness. It established the
> procedure whereby each might become a state. Between the existing states
of
> the Confederation and the new ones, the ordinance proclaimed a compact
that
> prohibited slavery and guaranteed religious freedom and basic legal rights
> like those later embodied in the Bill of Rights. Laying down fundamental
> conditions for building new states, the ordinance also included a sentence
> asserting that "religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good
> government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education
> shall forever be encouraged."
> During the first century of the new nation, Congress granted more
> than 77 million acres of the public domain as an endowment for the support
> of public schools. In times of pressing national debt, congressional
> leaders were eager to sell the western lands owned by the federal
> government; land speculators persuaded Congress to include subsidies for
> schools as an inducement to attract settlers.
> The tracts ceded to states for the support of public schools grew
> steadily over the years. In 1841, Congress passed an act that granted
> 500,000 acres to eight states, later increased to make grants to a total
of
> nineteen states, to be used for "internal improvements." A majority of
> these states devoted all or part of the income from these lands to the
> schools. In 1848, Congress approved the policy of reserving two lots, 16
> and 36, for the support of schools when it established the territorial
> government of Oregon. In 1850, California was the first state to receive
> both lots, amounting to 5.5 percent of the public domain in the state. The
> desert states of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico-where much of the land had
> little value-each received four sections per township for the support of
> public schools.
> The federal government also granted money, such as distributions of
> surplus federal revenue and reimbursements for war expenses, to the
states.
> Though Congress rarely prescribed that such funds be used only for
schools,
> education constituted one of the largest expenses of state and local
> governments, and so they used federal monies for this purpose. Moreover,
> Congress awarded a certain percentage of proceeds from the sale of U.S.
> lands within the borders of the new state; the amount ranged from 3 to 10
> percent, with most states receiving 5 percent. Twelve states, all of them
> west of the Mississippi except Wisconsin, decreed in their constitutions
> that income from this fund should flow to the common school fund.
> On the surface, the legal and constitutional framework of the new
> nation gave federal authorities little say over the financing and
> governance of public schools. In the beginning, writing constitutions in
> the new territories came to regard the grants as fundamental to statehood.
> Many of these leaders hoped that the federal largesse might one day
provide
> full support for the common schools. In some territories the income from
> federal lands granted to the states and then leased or sold to settlers
> constituted the only source of state funding. In nearly every state, the
> availability of the land grants served to generate revenue for public
> institutions.
> The dark We of they story is that vast sums were lost through
> corruption or mismanagement. States like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois found
> it difficult to realize profits from the lands for use in establishing
> public schools. Learning from experience, Congress and state constitutions
> began to specify prices and conditions of sale for the lands sold to
> support schools. The states created supposedly inviolate common school
> funds to be allocated to local districts. To receive this money, local
> educators were expected to comply with state regulations about the length
> of the school term and teacher qualifications.
> The gradual evolution toward state control of federal land grants
> was more the result of pragmatic experience than the outcome of deliberate
> educational policy. Partly because of a strong commitment to states'
rights
> in the period before the Civil War, Congress stopped short of trying to
> control the management of education grants, even when states were abusing
> the terms under which they received the grants. In Illinois, for example,
> the legislature diverted the funds intended for schools to other purposes.
> State officials refused to make the required reports to the U.S. Treasury.
> In retaliation, the federal government refused to make payments. Congress
> resolved the dispute by repealing the requirement that states make
reports.
> As years went by, state constitutions in the West became specific
> about such bureaucratic matters. The educational provisions that regulated
> land grants expanded along with other language controlling the
> establishment of schools. Indirectly, the federal government provided
> leverage to states for centralizing control over schools. By the end of
the
> nineteenth century, Congress itself began to set the terms for the sale of
> lands to support schools in the enabling acts of new states. It went so
far
> as to require several new states-Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
> Washington-to establish free, non-sectarian public school systems as a
> condition for admission to the union and receipt of the land grants.
> After the mid-century, congressional grants became more generous
> and controls over the disposition of land more strict. Citizens in the
> northwestern states, profiting from the mistakes of governments to the
> east, creatively conserved and used the funds from land sales for the
> public good instead of private gain. In states west of the Mississippi,
> roughly 10 percent of the school budgets came from the sale of public land
> granted for school purposes. This was far less than a full subsidy of
> public education, but it was also far from negligible.
> The procedure of drafting a constitution and then gaining
> congressional approval for statehood prompted the citizens of the
> territories to think systematically about public schools. The act of
> constructing a frame of government, and of recognizing the place of
> education in that structure, gave leaders the opportunity to make choices
> among the policies that had been tried in other states. The newer states
> could borrow from the experiences of the older ones. In this way, citizens
> shaped and reinterpreted a living constitutional tradition, embodied in
the
> federal and original state constitutions.
> The organization of American education grew more complex as public
> institutions and the society as a whole expanded in the nineteenth
century.
> Constitutional provisions on schools reflected this growing complexity. In
> the earlier documents, idealistic preambles and brief treatments of
federal
> land grants seemed enough when settlers were building only log schools in
> the wilds of the Midwest. By contrast, when territorial assemblies in the
> sparsely populated far Northwest states created constitutions, they wrote
> elaborate new bureaucratic structures into their educational provisions.
> They were trying to reflect the best examples of institution-building in
> their time.
> Although more attuned to administrative detail than leaders in the
> early years, these educational policy makers also continued to reflect the
> ideology that had fueled nearly a century of effort to create common
> schools as an essential feature of American government. In 1874, a group
of
> seventy seven college presidents,and city and state superintendents of
> schools issued a statement that described this process of institutional
> development:
> As a consequence of the perpetual migration from the older sections
> of the country to the unoccupied Territories, there are new states in all
> degrees of formation, and their institutions present earlier phases of
> realization of the distinctive type that are presented in the mature
growth
> of the system as it exists in the thickly-settled and older States. Thus
> States are to be found with little or no provision for education, but they
> are rudimentary forms of the American State, and are adopting, as rapidly
> as immigration allows them to do so, the type of educational institutions
> already defined as the result of American political and social ideas.
> While the educational provisions of constitutions of the original
> states changed but little, new states aspired to incorporate the most
> up-to-date public school systems. They wanted to show themselves to be
> enlightened and civilized as they joined the union of states. Accordingly,
> they wrote more and more elaborate provisions for education into their
> state constitutions.
> They codified the institutional structures that had developed
> through statutory law in the older states, such as state boards of
> education, county and state superintendents, and teacher training
> institutions. Turning against earlier traditions of religious instruction,
> many prohibited sectarian instruction in public schools and any public aid
> to schools affiliated with religious groups. Some constitutional
> conventions in the South after the Civil War mandated compulsory school
> attendance in their constitutions, even though their states had only
> recently established a common school system. An expanding nation composed
> of dozens of newly added states became a country in which the new states
> could copy from the old and the old were challenged to innovate to match
> the progress achieved by younger peers.
> Like the land ordinances of the 1780s, state constitutions in the
> nineteenth century became much more than documents designed to attract new
> residents and win statehood. They were strategies for achieving organized
> social life-a political system, a rule of law, a structure of governance,
> and adequate financial incentives for creating institutions such as public
> schools. Similar to the town and city plats of the developers, but for an
> entire system of government, these documents promised that the state on
the
> periphery would one day match the ideal of statehood most admired by its
> predecessors. Reflecting upon this process during the California
> constitutional convention of 1849, a delegate quoted the view of Robert J.
> Walker, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, who argued:
>
> Each state is deeply interested in the welfare of every other; for the
> representatives of the whole regulate by their votes the measures of the
> Union, which must be the more happy and prosperous in proportion as its
> councils are guided by more enlightened views, resulting from the more
> universal diffusion of light, knowledge, and education.
>
> In this process of forming new states, Congress played a subdued
> role, setting the terms for territorial government, shaping the
> requirements for admission in the enabling acts, approving the new
> constitutions, then granting vast amounts of federal land to stimulate
> improvements, including public schools, in the fledgling societies on the
> frontier.
> Nowhere is the perceived importance of schooling more Political
> Ideology apparent than in the language used to describe it in state Public
> Schooling constitutions. A striking feature of the educational clauses in
> nineteenth-century state constitutions is their idealistic tone. With the
> exception of language in the declarations of rights, no other sections
> contained so much exhortation to virtue. None of the other parts of
> government received such broad justifications phrased in the political
> discourse of the eighteenth century. Sections on the legislative branch
did
> not extol the virtues of representative government, nor those on the
> judiciary the glories of justice. Clauses on suffrage, militia,
> corporations, revenue, and divisions of the executive branch were plain
and
> businesslike. In contrast, the high-flown justifications of the common
> school declared public education to be a shared value. It was a
fundamental
> guarantee built into government. Like those other guarantees embedded in
> the declarations of rights, it was a common good above the squabbles of
> political party or sect.
> . The Ohio constitution of 1802 reflected this belief by including a
> provision for schooling in the declaration of rights itself. Such idealism
> about education entered into the debates of constitutional conventions
with
> an intensity that often reconciled extreme political differences. To mark
a
> moment of concord between jousting Whigs and Democrats in the Illinois
> constitutional convention of 1847, a delegate said, "As the soul rises
into
> immortality when the body falls into decay and perishes, so does the cause
> of education rise in splendor and grandeur above all party schemes and
> factions."
> In ascribing such importance to public schooling, the framers of
> state constitutions were consciously developing a connection between
> education and democracy. A resonant political argument, this connection
> went back to the rhetoric of the nation's founding fathers. "The business
> of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our
> country," wrote Benjamin Rush, a Pennsylvanian who signed the Declaration
> of Independence and served as an articulate spokesman for republican
ideas,
> in 1786. "The form of government we have assumed," he continued, "has
> created a new class of duties to every American." Rush thought it
necessary
> to establish "nurseries of wise and good men," a system of education from
> common schools through colleges, to ensure the survival of the republic.
> (Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
> Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
> Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
> Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986) p 148-155)
>
> **********************************************
> #7
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9shhbto5pf9pcpbi6bu5v1243605nqiiab%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> #8
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2qhhbt4iguic35ar3oklais4aqb0c5q1hu%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> #9
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=felhbt85trl40j1ih8u3pr8lgb0n3o926c%404ax.com&output=gplain
>
> *****************************************
> For those wishing to do independent study on their own, the following is a
> good beginning:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The Land Ordinance itself:
>
> Excerpt from the Land Ordinance of 1785:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Item #1
>
> May 20, 1785
>
> There shall be reserved for the United States out of every
> township, the four lots, being numbered 8, 11, 28, 29, and out of every
> fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall
be
> found thereon, for future sale. THERE SHALL BE RESERVED THE LOT
> N 16, OF EVERY TOWNSHIP, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
> SCHOOLS, WITHIN SAID TOWNSHIP (Emphasis mine); also one third part of all
> gold, silver, lead and copper mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of
> as Congress shall hereafter direct.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Person # 1
>
> Slavery and Bondage in the "Empire of Liberty" Paul Finkelman Northwest
> Ordinance, Essays on its formulation, provisions and Legacy, Edited by
> Frederick D. Williams, Michigan State University Press. (1988) p 75
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> Persons #2
> (Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
> Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
> Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
> Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986) p 148-155)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Persons #3
> D. Stickney and Lawrence R. Marcus, THE GREAT EDUCATION DEBATE: WASHINGTON
> AND THE SCHOOLS, Springfield, ill. CC Thomas, 1984 page 6)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> Person #4
> "Public Education in the United States, From Revolution
> to Reform, by R. Freeman Butts, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, (1978)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> Person #5
> The American Tradition in Religion and Education, by R. Freeman Butts.
> Greenwood Press Publishers (1974)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> Person #6
> The Development of Public Universities in the Old Northwest, by Jurgen
> Herbst, pp 97. Northwest Ordinance, Essays on its formulation, Provisions
> and Legacy, edited by Fredick D. Williams Michigan State University press.
> (1988)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> Persons #7
> Education for a Republic: Federal Influence on Public Schooling in the
> Nations First Century, David Tyack and Thomas James.This Constitution Our
> Enduring Legacy. American Political Science Association, American
> Historical Association. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. (1986)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> Persons #8 & #9
> Paul Mort, Federal Support for Public Education_, 1936; he's quoting from
a
> article titled "Federal Financing of Education," by William Russell,
> published in "School and Society," August 19, 1933):
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> Person #10
> Political Inquires to which is Added A Plan for the Establishment of
> Schools Throughout the United States, Robert Coram, (1791). American
> Political Writing During the Founding Era, 1760- 1805, Volume II, Charles
> S. Hyneman, Donald S. Lutz, Liberty Press, Indianapolis, (1983) p. 784
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> Person #11
> American Presidents and Education, Maurice R. Berube,
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> Person #12
> The Northwest Ordinance as a Constitutional Document, Denis P. Duffey.
> Columbia Law Review, Vol 95, May 1995, No.4, p 938)
>
> ====================================================
> SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
> -------- --------- ------------ -------
> #1
> See James A. Curry et al., Constitutional Government: The American
> Experience 81 (1989); see also Carter, supra note 4,. at 22 (noting that
> the pattern applied to the Northwest Territory also applied largely to the
> Southwest Territory and to the territories of Mississippi. Orleans.
> Louisiani-Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida); Eblen. supra note 5,
> at 241 ("[I)ts provisions were to lay the foundation for the government of
> the thirty-one public Lands states and Hawaii."). For the Southwest
> Ordinance and other legislative progeny of the Northwest Ordinance, see
> Frederick E. Hosen. Unfolding Westward in Treaty and Law: Land Documents
in
> United States History from the Appalachians to the Pacific, 1785-1934, a
45
> (Southwest Ordinance) 59-80 (Mississippi Territorial Act), 84-.89
(Missouri
> Territorial Act), 188-97 (Oregon Territorial Act), 197-203 (Minnesota
> Territorial Act) (1988).
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> #2
> REPORT ON MANUFACTURES, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed, THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER
> HAMILTON, Vol 4, New York: GP Putnam & Sons, 1904, pp 151-52)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> #3
> Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates over Original Intent,
> Joseph M. Lynch Cornell University Press (1999)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> #4
> Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
> 291-296
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> #5
> The Writings of James Madison, Edited by Gaillard
> Hunt, Volume II, 1783-178,7 G P Putnam/s Sons, New York London 1901, pp
> 143- 145)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> #6
> The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Annals
of
> Congress) August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by Gales and
> Seaton, Washington, 1834
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> #7
> THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, A
> Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers, by Paul
> Eidelberg, 1986, University Press of America,
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> #8
> PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING, Cases
> and Materials, Second Edition, Paul & Sanford Levinson, Little, Brown and
> Company, Boston-Toronto, 1983, pp 9-10.)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> #9
> James Madison, JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, Freeport NY Books
> for Libraries Press 1970
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> #10
> Bicentennial Edition NOTES OF THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
> 1787, Reported by James Madison, W.W. Norton & Company New York-London
> 1987, pp 27- 34
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>
>
Brian Mason
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqde45r...@corp.supernews.com...
> One of the main functions of government is to "promote the general
welfare."
> This means the government has an interest in making sure its citizens are
> educated.
Yes, the is "general" welfare not the welfare of some at the expence of
others.
Remove the state monopoly on education. It will become cheaper, better,
more facted, and better serve all citizens.
>
Brian Mason
> >> bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:42:43 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org>
> >wrote:
> >> >No one referred to the "naming" of any Department, Bob. That is up to
the
> >> >Legislative and Executive branches. Non sequitur
> >> >
> >> >What is not within the power of the Executive and Legislative
branches, are
> >> >those powers not emmuerated to them.
> >>
> >> False. Clearly, it is within their power, because they do it.
> >
> >Constitution. That you will just lay down and accept what they do as
being
> >right, reflects your own weakness.
>
> I did not indicate any opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of
> their power. I merely indicated that the fact that they did it
> indicates that they have the power to do it. That is what "have the
> power" means.
>
> >> Three powers not enumerated is that the president shall be able to
> >> eat, breath and take a shit. Does that mean that he doesn't have the
> >> power to do so?
> >
> >the use of using taxpayer money on public education.
>
> Show us where it enumerates that the President has the right to take a
> shit.
" The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny of
disparage others retained by the people"
Brian Mason
> "Brian Mason" <bma<rem>s...@itassociates.com> wrote:
> >> > In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> >> > evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
> >> cross,
> >> > ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
> >>
> >> School is not a forum for religion, that's why you have church. Please
go to
> >> the church of your choice and leave the school system for what it was
> >> intended: education.
> >
> >So return the public school monies to parents and let them choose.
>
> Why? It is not the parents' tax money. It is the public's tax money.
In this case it was taken from people for a specific purpose(namely
education), return it to its rightful owners and let them educate their
children as they see fit.
Brian Mason
Try ignoring the "friendly reminder" to pay your taxes. Try ignoring the
"friendly reminder" to not organize a prayer group at a public school.
In contrast, try ignoring the "friendly reminder" to upgrade your version
of MS windows.
Do you perceive a difference?
Brian Mason
"Gray Shockley" <gra...@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BBCC41F9...@news.giganews.com...
Exactly.
How might you go about testing a claim of religion (Atheism, Buddhism, ...)
as opposed to a claim of Science? Say the theory of gravity(science) as
opposed to the theory (Atheism) that there are no supra natural creatures?
>
>
> > and are simply held on faith.
>
> Really a strange "argument
The claims of science may be and regulary are falsified.
>
>
>
> > In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> > evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
cross,
> > ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
>
>
> So you're saying that ignoring religion is religious?
The state does not ignore religion as that would entail allowing a teacher
to decide to put up the ten commandments, or the five precepts of Buddhism,
... in a class room. All offical expression of and many purely student
initiated support of a rival to Atheism is forbidden.
Brian Mason
establish
> >> >atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural
creatures)
> >>
> >>
> >> >over other religions (non evidentiary belief that there are supra
natural
> >> >creatures).
> >>
> >> of the opposite belief system.
> >
> >Not only is it not recognized but at gun point others are prohibited from
> >supporting rival views.
>
> Of course they can. That is what religious private schools are for.
Yes, and you still must tithe to the Athiests.
> The public schools are not for the expression of any religious
> teachings at all.
I claim that forbidding at gunpoint any expression of rival views is a de
facto establishment of the religion of Atheism and so banned.
>
> >It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
> >themselves,
>
> They can decide whatever they want to believe. They cannot TEACH
> religion in the public schools.
Forcibly prohibiting any expression of rival religious views is teaching by
example.
More to the point, banning all official and much student initiated support
for rival religious(its claims cannot be tested but are insisted upon never
the less) views is establishing Atheism.
>
> >expressions of any religion other than Atheism is forbidden.
>
> False.
>
> http://archive.aclu.org/issues/religion/relig7.html
Yes an excellent piece which well supports my claims.
Individuals are free to do as they please as long as they are not
disruptive.
Officials are forbidden from organizing any activities which support a rival
view to state established Atheism. If all faculty and all student body
support it, it is still forbidden. Purely student organized displays of
rival religious views may be struck down by courts maybe not => risky, avoid
>
> >> >In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> >> >evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
cross,
> >> >ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
> >>
> >> No "non-evidentiary belief system" which is a religion can be
> >> supported at all, competing or otherwise. However non-religious
> >> ethical or moral systems (which might or might not be considered
> >> belief systems) aren't religions, and so might be permitted (hence we
> >> allow patriotism, which is such a belief system involving the goodness
> >> if not superiority of our country).
> >
> >A competing view of patriotism (i.e. flag burning) is allowed.
>
> It wasn't allowed until relatively recently.
>
> But that is irrelevant, because it isn't a religion. Flag burning is
> allowed as free speech, not a free religious expression.
My claim is that insistence on a view which cannot be falsified to the point
of supressing rival views with force is in fact if not in name religion.
>
> >I am calling willingness to use force to support views which cannot be
> >falsified a religion.
>
> Your unilateral redefinition of words matters only to you. That is
> not a definition of "religion" to anyone else.
Nonsense, "X is his religion" is a common expression.
Brian Mason
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BBCBB264.42A74E%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
> in article 3fa5f...@127.0.0.1, Brian Mason s...@itassociates.com> at
> bma<rem wrote on 11/3/03 1:38 AM:
>
> >
> >>> I think a reasonable case can be made to ban all public education as a
> >>> violation of the establishment clause. Public schools in effect
> > establish
> >>> atheism (non evidentiary belief that there are no supra natural
> > creatures)
> > natural
> >>> creatures).
> >>
> >> mostly being schools that still have school prayer. The problem is that
> > you
> >> hear about every instance of a student getting the prayer editted out
of
> >> their speach, but rarely hear about all of the schools that violate the
> >> establishment clause by playing pralers over the intercom or leading
> > prayers
> >> at football games. If you can come up even one circumstance of a school
> >> policy being the teaching that there is no god, I'd like to see it.
> >
> > supporting rival views.
> >
>
> Ridiculous. Where is this happening? Specifically? Where are teachers
being
> forced to teach atheism *at gun point*? Name your sources, and they need
to
> have places, names, and dates.
Forbiding offical expressions of rival religions is teaching by example.
More to the point, banning all official and much student initiated support
for rival religious(its claims cannot be tested but are insisted upon never
the less) views is establishing Atheism.
>
> > The prayer leaders are sought out and forced to support Athiesm at
gunpoint.
>
> Not in evidence. Assertion does not equal proof.
True.
That official prayers in schools is forbidden is common knowledge. That
purely student organized prayers may be forbidden maybe not is less common
knowledge. That uncertainty has a chilling effect is inately understood.
>
> >
> > It is not that the state is neutral and teachers/students can decide for
> > themselves, expressions of any religion other than Atheism is
forbidden.
> > Having no evidence to support their views, of course Athiests use force
> > against their rivals as did Christians when they had the power to do so
>
> Not at all. There are regularly expressions of religion allowed among and
by
> students. Teachers are not allowed to promote any religious or sectarian
> viewpoint, but that is a reasonable restriction. After all, you would not
> want a teacher promoting religious doctrine you disagreed with, right?
Yes, I am arguing that prohibition in effect establishes Aethism
(untestable view,exact opposite of science, that there are no supra natural
creatures) as a state religion.
> in the matter of prayer, an adherent to Islam would be offensive to most
> Christians.
>
> In point of fact, it might have been atheists who objected to being forced
> to participate in religious activities against their will, but many
faithful
> Christians support their objections. The loss of freedom of conscience is
a
> terrible thing, and most Christians recognize this.
Agreed, so do away with the public school system and and let people choose.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> These are religions(as opposed to Science) in that they cannot
> >>> be falsified and are simply held on faith.
> >>
> >> There are no schools teaching atheism. Period. What you are trying to
do
> > is
> >> something I've heard before - you're trying to argue that a school
can't
> > be
> >> neutral unless they have prayer and that being neutral is actually
> > teaching
> >> atheism. There might be some people that buy into this bait and switch,
> > but
> >> most won't.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In this case there is insistence at gunpoint that no competing non
> >>> evidentiary belief system be supported or even allowed a showing(i.e.
> >> cross,
> >>> ten commandments, ..) at public schools.
> >>
> >> School is not a forum for religion, that's why you have church. Please
go
> > to
> >> the church of your choice and leave the school system for what it was
> >> intended: education.
> >
> > So return the public school monies to parents and let them choose.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:3fa46b01...@news.ifx.net...
> >>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:57:49 -0500, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> :|Yes Thomas Jefferson did agree with public schooling...to be
> > handled
> >>> and
> >>>>>> :|financed within the state's own laws.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is a nice game you are playing, but the fact that you are playing
> > a
> >>>>> gamer doesn't bode well for your position.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether you feel it's a "game" is your opinion, but doesn't alter the
> >>> facts of
> >>>> the constitutionality of using federal taxpayer monies to fund public
> >>> education
> >>>> in all states. What the founders/framers said, the legislature they
> >>> addressed or
> >>>> what they wrote about,, is irrelevent as to what came out of the
State
> >>>> Conventions that ratified said document...which is the only body that
> >>> "gave it
> >>>> all the validity and authority which it possesses." (Letter to N.P.
> >> Trist,
> >>>> December, 1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 211)(
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately for you, the "game" is up, and you've been found
> >> "wanting".
> >>> You've
> >>>> been shown shown your errors, much of which is made of fallacies and
> >>>> half-truths. That you disbelieve or desire to "distort" the facts to
> >> your
> >>> favor,
> >>>> doesn't mean they are true. You've failed, time and again to show any
> >>> enumerated
> >>>> power that authorizes Congress to use federal taxpayer monies to fund
> >>> public
> >>>> education in all states. Too bad your too arrogant to admit it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If it was really a strong position, you wouldn't have to play games.
> >>>>
> >>>> Strange, I'm not the one that uses fallacies of distraction, partial
> >>> titles, or
> >>>> sources to support my position, then attempt to discredit my own
> > source
> >> as
> >>> you
> >>>> have done. That you can not even refute what has been provided you
> > from
> >>> the
> >>>> State Convention themselves, which is the only body that "gave it all
> >> the
> >>>> validity and authority which it possesses." (Letter to N.P. Trist,
> >>> December,
> >>>> 1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 211), shows your desire to be "right",
> > and
> >>> invoke
> >>>> fallacies of distraction rather than admit your in error. How pitiful
> >> you
> >>> must
> >>>> be that you need to resort to such tactics.
> >>>>
> >>>> My "position" is in the facts themselves, and have been presented
> >> without
> >>> the
> >>>> need for such "games" as you play, such as attempting to "bury" those
> >> with
> >>> whom
> >>>> you disagree with the same 'ole baloney that's been shown in error
> > time
> >>> and
> >>>> again. (and do so again in your post, which I've "snipped" below)
> >>>
> >>>>> Jefferson as most of the men of the period frequently wrote about
> > their
> >>>>> states since much of what they wrote at the time was before we had
a
> >>>>> nation under the Constitution.
> >>>>
> >>>> In this we agree. Yet Jefferson among others, also wrote about the
> >>> enumerated
> >>>> powers delegated to Congress under the US Constitution, and the
> > majority
> >>>> rejected Hamilton's attempt to use the "implied powers" concept, as
> > you
> >>>> evidently favor as justification for using federal taxpayer monies to
> >> fund
> >>>> public education in all states. It didn't "fly" under the founder
and
> >>> framers,
> >>>> nor was it either stated nor implied as justification by the State
> >>> Covention
> >>>> delegates.
> >>>>
> >>>>> That is your game, to much a lot of noise about the fact they were
> >>> writing
> >>>>> about Virginia or Penna, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet that is what they addressed, their state, as the use of funds for
> >>> national
> >>>> issues were nether entrusted nor enumerated as a power to Congress
wrt
> >>> using
> >>>> federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states. If
you
> >>> feel that
> >>>> it's a "game", it is but your opinion, and little more.
> >>>>
> >>>>> However, that doesn't automatically transform to remaining a local
> >> issue
> >>> as
> >>>>> the nation became a nation and expanded.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately for you, all issues were to "remain a local issue". If
> >> they
> >>> were
> >>>> to be "transformed" to a "national issue", then you will attempt
> >> (without
> >>>> falacies of course) to educate this NG as to the purpose of Article V
> > of
> >>> the US
> >>>> Constitution, won't you?
> >>>>
> >>>> That Article V has never been used to ratify, much less even propose
> >> such
> >>> an
> >>>> enumerated power to be entrusted to the federal government to
> > authorize
> >>> the use
> >>>> of federal taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states is
> > not
> >>> in
> >>>> question. Since it has never been an enumerated power, one must
> > return
> >> to
> >>>> constitutional law;
> >>>>
> >>>> "An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When
the
> >>>> Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution
> >> must
> >>>> govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this
> >> court
> >>> any
> >>>> original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and
> >>>> limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the
> > reason
> >>> the
> >>>> Constitution was written" -- Marbury vs. Madison
> >>>>
> >>>> "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
> > the
> >>> form
> >>>> and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
> >> ineffective
> >>> for
> >>>> any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
> >>> enactment, and
> >>>> not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
> >>> unconstitutional
> >>>> law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never
been
> >>> passed.
> >>>> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as
> > it
> >>> would
> >>>> be had the statute not been enacted." (American Jurisprudence,
> > Second
> >>> Edition,
> >>>> Volume 16, Section 177)
> >>>>
> >>>> "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the
> >> Constitution,
> >>> the
> >>>> debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no
> >>> authoritative
> >>>> character . . . [T]he legitimate meanings of the Instrument must be
> >>> derived from
> >>>> the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be .
.
> > .
> >>> in the
> >>>> sense attached to it by the people in their respective State
> >> Conventions,
> >>> where
> >>>> it received all the authority which it possesses." Letter to Thomas
> >>> Ritchie,
> >>>> September 15, 1821 (Madison, 1865, III, page 228)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not matter how much you try to devalue the Northwest Ordinance, the
> >> facts
> >>>>> are it established a method of public education, funding, etc and
> > that
> >>>>> method involved local, state and Congress.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is NO evidence that the Northwest Ordinance is a legal
> > instrument
> >>> under
> >>>> which the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to use
> >> federal
> >>>> taxpayer monies to fund public education in all states. Another
> >> re-posting
> >>> of
> >>>> your usual voluminous diatribe does not change this fact.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You have never effectively dealt with any of the following material:
> >>>>
> >>>> "snip" ANOTHER re-posting of material that I've previously addressed,
> >>> in-depth.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, with each of your long posts that provide little but your usual
> >>>> "cut-and-paste" of voluminous diatribe only detracts from your
> >> credibility
> >>> and
> >>>> failure to realize you may actually be wrong, be "big" enough to
> > admit
> >> it
> >>> and
> >>>> move on.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Brian Mason
> >> On 2 Nov 2003, Marion McCoskey wrote:
> >>
> >>> Public schools are an idea whose time has gone. It's not important to
> >>> quibble over they ways and means. I support anyone who has a proposal
> >>> to help eliminate this awful practice.
> >>
> >> So you think privatization is appropriate for public schools?
> >>
> >> Would students and their families pay enrollement?
> >>
> >> How much would that cost per student?
> >>
> >> What would become of those who cannot afford to pay for education?
> >
> > K-12 education has increased in real cost by a factor of seven and
decreased
> > in quality(as measured by standardized achievement scores) since the
50s.
> >
> > Privatizing it will make it much better and cheaper like everything else
for
> > the same reason.
> >
> > Those who will benefit though they cannot afford it (remember it has
been
> > made much better and cheaper) will receive help from family, church,
> > community, ...
> >
> > You worry about those who WILL NOT benefit(as judged by those who
actually
> > KNOW them: local bankers, extended family members, ...). Those that can
> > only gain access to funds of people who do NOT know them and cannot well
> > judge whether their education is worth investing in.
>
> I see. You are hopefully promoting an education underclass.
I am arguing that education should be better and cheaper. People and those
that know and care about them should decide which, how much, ... education.
Those who aren't
> worth investing in won't get it, and who cares what happens to them?
True, I neither know nor care . They and people around them who know about
them will care.
My mother should not be forced to pay for their education because people who
know and care about them will not.
>
> Of course, without an education, they will become the economic slaves in
the
> nation. I figure you know this.
Nonsense, they can do quite well for themselves without learning what
someone else thinks they should know.
> How many slaves are you wanting to own?
None. YOU are the one seeking slaves: dictate what others learn,
confiscate other's labor to pay to force your sense of knowledge, ...
> >
> > Same old crap: it is such a good idea, so sure of payoff, so obviously
> > good, ... that we must use guns to force people to do it.
>
> Oh right. That might be because you don't exercise any Christian charity.
I donate 5% net income to the Salvation army in a purely voluntary way. I
appreciate the work of the Salvation army and have slept many nights under
blankets provided by them. How do you demonstrate the Christian charity your
seem so fond of?
> You know, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that.
Yes, do not force your neighbor to give money to strangers. Do not dictate
what your neighbor will learn and all that.
>You want an
> education for your own children, but not for others, and do not care what
> happens to them so long as your needs are met.
I want education to be better, cheaper and more faceted to be of more help
to more people. That is, helping them gain knowledge they find useful for
themselves NOT what someone else thinks they should know.
>
> Delightfully vicious, this attitude. Thank you for demonstrating it
> publicly.
It does not surprise me that you delight in viciousness.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/about_the_series/index.html
> >>
> >
> >
>