Because I've read the constitution. Re-read it, then read this...https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Cons.../dp/0865972796

And you will say I don't know how anyone could find it unconstitutional....

jon would you describe yourself as a strict constructionist then?

Yes I would

That's a strawman argument. Nobody is going to send their kid to a Catholic school unless they're already Catholics.

That actually is specifically not true. Many non-Catholics in east coast inner cities where the public schools are bad have sent their children to Catholic schools; more have done it when there were vouchers available.

But regardless, I am of the opinion that no child is truly Catholic or any other religion. They certainly aren't born with a predisposition towards a particulat religion. They become members of a particular religion only when indoctrinated. There is no reason the citizenry as a whole should be forced to pay for a subset of the country to indoctrinate their own children.

This is my biggest concern about vouchers. If there is a way to do it without screwing over poor people, I'm actually in favor. The track record has not been good.

I actually don't care if people use it for religious schools. If a school provides a real education, that's good whether it's religious or not. If it doesn't provide a real education, that's bad whether it's religious or not.

A lot of non-religious public schools are terrible and screwing over poor people. If the Church presents a real solution to this problem, we should all cheer.

Yes, the founders were in many ways had very primitive beliefs. They even believed one man could be the property of another, and acted on that belief as well. I think we can do better.

So state sponsored religious schools are clearly unconstitutional because you have a better beliefs system than the framers of the first amendment but no understanding of the constitution itself?

I believe that government sponsoring religious schools represents an establishment of religion. You obviously have a different opinion (or are blinded by your own self-interest). It is certainly not stated precisely in the constitution or its amendments, so we both have to leave it to judges to interpret.

And, yes, I do have a better (more moral) belief system than did the framers, but that isn't really particularly relevant to the question except in noting that the founders were flawed men who did not necessarily possess good moral values, so looking outside of the constitution to try to figure out their intent is a pointless project, IMO.

So long as the funds are available to schools representing a variety of religions, seems fine. I haven't read anything to make me believe they wouldn't be. I received a catholic education for 9 years, am no longer religious, and would love to send my child to a similar school if I could.

$10 no limit holdem tourney on swcpoker last night:

second hand of the tourney. first time playing with this opponent.

5 handed. HJ has 151.5 big blinds after stealing the blinds the first hand. I have exactly 150 big blinds.

HJ opens 4x with standard tags between us, so likely no exploitive preflop adjustments yet. I click the pot button with QQ, he shoves 151.5 big blinds total. The price sucks, but I do a quick application of bayes theorem in my head:

1) I've seen him play <2 hands and he's done nothing but take aggressive action so far.

2) the preflop overbet shove with 150 big blinds effective seems really bad to me.

3) the unknown spew factor is present.

4) gambool.

-----

I deliberate and call. He shows 77.



-----

oh good morning.

-----

Cali, I agree that talking politics can broaden one's frame of mind by seeing the viewpoint of others. However, my viewpoint is that almost all politicians are corrupt as ****, which is why I dislike talking politics.

----

Also, this: NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUgduOeXuA

Is the 1st amendment the only applicable law? Is all case law since the founding worthless?

Let's skip the "what it should be" and get right to what it will be in some cases. The small town where I grew up was strongly fundamentalist. Let's say JL's Strict Interpretation goes off, and perhaps the folks who are there belong to certain social organizations that may or may not be prevalent. We have capitalism of schools. 85% of people in town go to "The correcly religious school of Church A". Due to religious freedom, they can exclude homosexual and transgender kids (and the children of those who are) -- there's a stack of often quoted bible verses that forbids associating with them. Maybe we add in a "church member in good standing" clause to enrollment, to keep out people of skin colors that are less well liked, and of course no foreigner passes this test. Again, their church has their rules, so the government has no right to violate their religious freedom and choice of association. Another 10% of people go to the school sponsored by the Papal Church, and the locals running that school allow some of the people excluded by the other group -- that's assuming they convert and pay tithes (our gang was gung-ho).

The other 5% of people in town don't have critical mass to form their own schools and the public schools don't exist. Is that OK? Is the movement a pure expression of originalism or are there elements of freedom to discriminate as we choose mixed in with local governments strongly favoring single religions (as in sects of one religion)? Strongly favoring religion over non-religion. Can the local pastor or priest rightly have additional control over your family by threatening to kick you out of church, and thus cause your children to lose access to the only good school in town? This, even though public funds built and now run the school?

I remember I took a place where one test question was what is the role of the judiciary. Anyone that answered to read/interpret the constitution automatically failed.

If the government said tomorrow that Catholicism is now the official religion of the U.S. that would violate the establishment clause, if the U.S. passed laws/policy encouraging people to go to the church of their own religious preference, that does not violate the establishment clause.

Agree Just to be clear, if you want to use my property taxes to send your kid to a jewish hi school for example, I think thats great and should definitely be encouraged.

This would be a interesting read for you, highly recommend. https://www.amazon.com/Vindicating-F.../dp/0847685179

That may be an interesting read, but no matter what it says, to me it will never vindicate the morals of someone who ever "owned" another person.

Why does everyone assume the Founding Fathers all agreed on anything?

They argued amongst themselves about what the Constitution meant for decades after the Constitution was ratified. And only about 1/3 of the colonists wanted to secede from Britain to begin with.

The Constitution in its original form was so patchwork that it couldn't be ratified without being amended ten times.

Religious people generally have an easier time with originalism because they already have a precedence of a holy document.

What about a Muslim madressa?

Fundamentally, I wonder why the discussion is always about Constitutionality rather than about helping people.

"Separate but equal" is probably Constitutional. "Separate" certainly is. But in reality, "equal" is impossible to achieve with "separate" in the mix, and pretty ****ing hard even when not separate. So Consitutional or not, most/many are willing to sacrifice "separate" for "a better chance of being equal." I am one of those.

Yes, of course, those who disagree will counter with "what other Constitutional rights are you willing to sacrifice?" And it's a good question that I don't have a list to answer. But it's proportional to the people hurt/helped. If something hurts a lot of people or would help a lot of people, I'm willing to give up more than if there's little at stake.

And to be clear, I agree I would be a terrible judge. I agree that judges should be textual (not necesarily originalist though) and they're going to make some real ******* rulings. That's really the only way the judicial system works. But that's one branch of government and Congress should spend more of their time debating whether a policy is going to help or hurt people.

I think what a lot of people forget or ignore is there is a system in place for changing bad or out of date laws.

Let's take gay marriage as an example since it's relatively controversial. While im sure most think I'm a religion:right wing wacko, I have no problems with gay marriage (I'm also pro gays couples being able to adopt fwiw).... that being said I think the Supreme Court ruling legalizing it in all states was a horrible horrible decision. It's clearly a states rights issues and should be up to each state to govern marriage how they see fit. Then it's up to the cite th of each state to vote for electors that will pass he legislation they think is best.....

Further is you want to make it a federal issue pass an amendment to The constitution that recognizes all marriages or whatever. I think most like minded conservatives would have no problem with that at all

Gay marriage becomes a federal issue when the federal government gives tax benefits based on marital status.

And the government has the right to do that. If you disagree elect different reprsenriaces in government to change the laws, but don't ignore or interpret the existing laws to create rights that don't exist. Example, there is no constitutional right to privacy.


There a difference between govnernment issued privilege and civil-rights/civil liberties.

And when states violate rights or conflict with federal laws it is up to federal courts to decide. Congress is/was free to pass laws on this as well. Doesn't make the decision correct. But it is the way it is...

I believe in gay right to marraige, but not divorce -jk

On a tangential topic Gorsuch hobby lobby decision to allow employers to exclude certain medical procedure coverage based on owners religous beliefs seems horrible. Some religions believe blood tranfusions / transplants are an abomination, should employers really be able to dictate what is covered or not? It is a slippery slope.

To be fair, it was the slippery slope the federal government decided to step on when their policies resulted in the trend towards health care being financed through employment (one big driver: wage controls during WWII implemented under FDR: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14839.pd...=auto,-152,740).

You can go back further than that.

States rights were the reason southern states withdrew from the union. Anti-states rights was the reason the central government fought to prevent the sesession.

Abolish slavery came in a few years later to increase support for the continued hostilities in certain northern circles.

States rights have never recovered to ante bellum levels.