Re: Vouchers lost in court, deserve no new chance

WOW!!!!!!!! Malcolm got banned from Internet Infidels discussion Board. LOL

I guess that is why he is back here  

malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>:|JTEM rote:
>:|malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
>:|
>:|(MK): "The Supreme Curt of Florida (SCOFLA) did not..."

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5264091#post5264091


Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Mitchell versus Helms. Then read Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in
that case. Then read the two opposing essays on the constitutionality of
school vouchers in the Brookings Institution/Urban Institute/CED study
Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services.
Mitchell v Helms was a plurality ruling. Plurality rulings do not make new
law. Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion is actually the controlling
opinion in this case not Thomas's opinion.
http://volokh.com/posts/1127924120.shtml

O'Connor's opinion gutted Thoma's opinion.

Here are some articles that will give you a different view than Malcom
will
ever give you on Mitchell v Helm and vouchers

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF VOUCHERS AFTER MITCHELL V. HELMS
http://www.law.nyu.edu/pubs/annualsu...7%20(2000).pdf
http://tinyurl.com/6pzgn8

MITCHELL V. HELMS AND THE MODERN CULTURAL ASSAULT ON THE SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lws...3_5/02_TXT.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court as moral physician: Mitchell v. Helms and the
constitutional revolution to reduce restrictions on governmental aid to
religion. By Derek Davis. Journal of Church and State, Volume 43, Number
2,
Spring 2001 pp 213-233

If you don't have access to this Journal I can quote some of it here or I
can scan the article and email it to you probably

@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
[Mitchell versus Helms. Then read Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in
that case. Then read the two opposing essays on the constitutionality of
school vouchers in the Brookings Institution/Urban Institute/CED study
Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services.
There is some background here for anyone who wants it on Mitchell v Helms
Plurality opinions and other voucher related topics

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...526b863cbdd013

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.e...12ea532b875c8f

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...526b863cbdd013

A lot of reading but you can always bookmark them and go back to them
later
and as often as time and interest in the topic dictates

@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 one is long so will only add the URL for anyone interssted in reading
it

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5268758#post5268758

@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 RULE:
See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (explaining that
“[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale
explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of
the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who
concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”).
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1444.01A
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FRAGMENTED DECISIONS (PLURALITY DECISIONS)  
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%28Marks+v.+U.S.%2C+430+U.S.+188&btnG=Google+Search


***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning.  Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic."  New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992) 
.. . . 
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote 

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

***************************************************************** 
       THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE: 
    SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 
	
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************