XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 6/22/22 12:46 PM, Lee wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > The Supreme Court Just Forced Maine to   
   > Fund Religious Education.   
   > June 22   
   >   
   > The Supreme Court’s conservative   
   > supermajority effectively declared   
   > on Tuesday that the separation of   
   > church and state—a principle   
   > enshrined in the Constitution—is,   
   > itself, unconstitutional. Its 6–3   
   > decision in Carson v. Makin requires   
   > Maine to give public money to private   
   > religious schools, steamrolling decades   
   > of precedent in a race to compel state   
   > funding of religion. Carson is radical   
   > enough on its own, but the implications   
   > of the ruling are even more frightening:   
   > As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in   
   > dissent, it has the potential to   
   > dismantle secular public education in   
   > the United States.   
   >   
   > Just two decades ago, this claim   
   > would’ve been laughed out of court:   
   > SCOTUS only permitted states to   
   > subsidize religious schools in 2002;   
   > at the time, it would’ve been absurd   
   > to say that states have a constitutional   
   > obligation to subsidize them. Beginning   
   > in 2017, the court began to assert that   
   > states may not exclude religious schools   
   > from public benefits that are available   
   > to their secular counterparts. And in   
   > 2020, the conservative justices forced   
   > states to subsidize religious schools   
   > once they began subsidizing secular   
   > private education.   
   >   
   > Tuesday’s decision in Carson takes   
   > this radical theory to a new extreme,   
   > ordering Maine to extend public   
   > education funds to religious   
   > indoctrination.   
   >   
   > https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/carson-makin-supreme-court-m   
   > aine-religious-education.html   
   >   
   >   
   Actually supporting any "education" other than those stated in the   
   Constitution as being United States delegated power is a VIOLATION of   
   the Constitution, so Federal support of "education" using Federal   
   APPROPRIATION LAWS or TAX LAWS passed into law by Congress and/or the   
   President is UnConstitutional.   
      
   I think the Supreme Court could argue that SCHOOL SECURITY might be an   
   actual Jurisdictional/Constitutional argument that NATIONAL SECURITY   
   could pay for security at the schools but *NOT for any* educational type   
   of programs.   
      
      
   That's like paying for religious education without any delegated powers   
   to do it.  Because while the 1st Amendment bans Congress making any   
   religion a NATIONAL religion with "Congress shall make no law" at the   
   same time there is no delegated power to create or fund religions just   
   as there are no delegated powers to create or fund any education program   
   NOT enumerated in the Constitution.   
      
   That means the United States has no Jurisdiction but it also means the   
   States aren't denied the power...  except that the *supremacy clause*   
   means that Federal law is superior... the problem being Congress can't   
   make a law based on establishing religion or suppression of your   
   exercising religious belief.   
      
   SO while the Feds are denied that power...  the States and the people   
   apparently can dabble in religion.   
      
   SO once again the United States Government Can't spend money or write   
   laws that interfere or finance religion they also can't interfere or   
   finance with laws, any "education" of the people. SO no FEDERAL RELIGION   
   and NO FEDERAL EDUCATION or funding of it.   
      
   NOT me saying it, it's the Constitution.   
      
   ----------------------------------------------------------------   
   Amendment I   
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or   
   prohibiting the free exercise thereof;   
   -------------------------------------------------------------------   
      
      
      
      
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Article I   
   Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,   
   Duties, Imposts and Excises, *to pay the Debts and provide for the*   
   common Defence and general Welfare *of the United States* ; but all   
   Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;   
      
      
   *CLAUSE* 7   
   *To promote* the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for   
   limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their   
   respective Writings and Discoveries;   
   ----------------------------------------------------------   
      
      
   There is nothing about education I did a word search of the Amendmnets   
   and the original Constituion.  Nothing popped-up.  But I remembered this   
   clause in the section 8 list of things Congress is empowered to do and   
   it says  *TO PROMOTE*  NOT to pay for, so there is a distinction between   
   taxing and paying for, and promoting and it doesn't include paying for   
   educations... but it is supposed to promote science and "useful arts".   
      
   Which means it's unconstitutional for Government to send money to the   
   States to educate people.   
      
   You see...  the PREAMBLE also makes this distinction between *PROMOTE*   
   and *PROVIDE* where is says "provide for the common defence, promote the   
   general Welfare" and it doesn't say that any welfare is PROVIDED "to   
   ourselves and our Posterity" which means that NO WELFARE is to be paid   
   for by laws but rather your *DEFENCE* is paid for by laws...  WELFARE IS   
   PROMOTED WITH LAWS BY NOT OVER TAXING AND BY CREATING THE ENVIRONMENT   
   for the people to PROVIDE that welfare for themselves.   
      
   AGAIN it's in the very welfare clause that the SUPREME COURT GOT WRONG...   
      
   Article I   
   Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,   
   Duties, Imposts and Excises, *to pay the Debts and provide for the*   
   common Defence and general Welfare *of the United States* ; but all   
   Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;   
      
   They don't pay the debts of all the people and if they don't do that   
   then they also don't pay for the welfare of all the people.  NO they   
   provide for the common defence and general welfare *OF THE UNITED*   
   *STATES*not "of the people".  And what is the Jurisdiction of the United   
   States, it's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and the union it's NOT the STATES or   
   State jurisdiction.  SO funding State jurisditcion or the people with   
   welfare or education money is unconstitutional.   
      
   Democrats tell us that words mean thing and they change words based on   
   their feelings, except they have to get an Amendment to the Constitution   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)