Good evening again, Robert! Robert Goodman wrote, in part, in response to Frank Reichert...
OK. The top ct. of Fla. struck down one of the state's school voucher programs on the basis of Fla's constitution's providing for a "uniform" system of schools. I selected 3 articles on the subject for their complementarity of background info, including others' reactions. I hear there are some other states that have the uniformity requirement in their constitutions.
Now perhaps we're getting somewhere after all, at least something here that might be useful to talk about.
I became aware of this a day or so ago on the network news, forgot the channel. I believe Idaho might eventually become a test case, that is, if the State Legislature moves in the direction of tax credits or a combination of that with a voucher system.
I do recall, about 30 years ago as a University of Idaho transfer student, that theology and religion courses I took at an accredited college in Chicago, were forfeited for credit at the U of I. It ticked me off at the time, since I believed, and still do, that the State, regardless of any supposed uniformity requirement prohibiting religion and state, ought to at least recognize academic word at an accredited private college.
During both my 2000 State Senate campaign and my 2004 State Representative campaign, I campaigned for Education Reform in Idaho promoting a combination of tax credits and vouchers for parents who choose alternatives to the government schools. Since I already knew it was official policy in Idaho to be hostile to religious education, even transferring credit from an otherwise accredited college, I suspected that even if such a system of tax credits and vouchers were actually passed by the State Legislature, the law would probably end up in the State Court, and likely overturned by it.
I wouldn't suggest here however, that the Federal courts ought to step in and order Idaho (or Florida) to conform to a nationally mandated standard recognizing accredited institutions courses, including those in theology or religion, but there seems to be a lot of empty rhetoric here in employing definitions that probably weren't intended at the time State Constitutions were ratified. It is interesting that since both Idaho and Florida became States long before the beginning of the 20th Century, it is doubtful at least in my mind, that either Legislature drafting such Constitutions intended that the State should NOT recognize studies in religion, or theology, as academic disciplines insofar as State colleges and universities are concerned.
In other words, the current problem with the Florida State Constitution is probably something in the order of rather recent origin (say within the last 30-50 years) of reinterpretation by various State Courts on something their Constitution probably was never intended to address at all.
I think some of this is now occurring again at the Federal level, as it has long been the propensity of the US Senate to be greatly divided on Supreme Court nominees over judicial philosophy. It is interesting to be sure, that the character of judicial philosophy usually isn't the subject or character of the questions posed to nominees. However, during my lifetime in observing these proceedings, it has been my observation that usually the questions over the moral issues usually somehow revolve around a divergence in judicial philosophy, that being, a strict interpretation of the US Constitution based upon the original intent, and that of a relative character based entirely upon applying the language to current relative issues -- usually at a great stretch, and subjectively interpreted.
I think what we are dealing with here is simply trying to define areas in which the original authors of Constitutions probably never considered would take place at a time and space in which they likely didn't contemplate at the time the State Constitutions where written and ratified; that is also the case of course, with our national Constitution to be sure.
I have to believe that each of these are State issues, and ought to be resolved in the State Courts. The Federal government should not arbitrarily walk in and overrule State Courts as the Supreme Court did in the Roe vs. Wade case. I suggest only that I have more confidence in State Courts to decide matters that are mainly relevant at the local or state level.
Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
