GOV201603081705
Brock Wilcox
Were this court to declare this pending Act unconstitutional, we would also have
to declare the entire public school system just as unconstitutional, in accordance with the
tests set forth in the Lemon v. Kurtzman case. However, upon closer examination, it was
decided that neither of these decisions are correct, and thus finds that the proposed Act is
constitutional and recommend it as being thus.
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court states:
Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and
state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some
relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 , 312 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374
U.S. 398 , 422 (1963) (HARLAN, J., dissenting). Fire inspections,
building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory
school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible
contacts. Indeed, under the Statutory exemption before us in Walz, the
State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in
fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against
entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a
"wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the
circumstances of a particular relationship.
As well as outlining these rules for whether or not something meets with the
religious portion of the First Amendment:
The action must
1. Have a secular legislative purpose
2. Have a principle or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
3. Avoid excessive government entanglement with religion
You see, the problem is in the First Amendment, where it says “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof…”. No law can be made respecting an establishment of religion, and implicitly,
the lack thereof. By not conforming to any one religions standard, by avoiding religion
altogether, the laws in fact establish a religion of their own. The religion of the law. The
first amendment is therefor a self destruction to the entire system, when interpreted in this
way.
Which is why it cannot be interpreted to stop this Act. The Act proposes a pilot
program for giving vouchers to schools on a student populous basis. Argument against
this Act is based on the ideal of tax money going to private, possibly religious, schools,
thereby violating the First Amendments declaration of non-affiliation with any
established religion.
The inevitability of some entanglement with religion being established, however,
this court sees no more entanglement in this case than in that of the very existence of a
non-religious public school system, on the basis that a non-religious school can be
claimed to be inhibiting to religion.
It is therefore the decision of this court that the proposed Act fully complies with
all previously written laws, including the constitution and amendments, as they are
currently interpreted and implemented.