In the 1940s, the Ewing Township school district (in New Jersey) used district funds to reimburse parents for the cost of sending their children to school using public transportation. The district would reimburse parents for transportation whether their children went to public or private school, including to the many Catholic schools in the area. A resident named Arch Everson objected to having his tax dollars spent on this, and he sued the school district, claiming that by paying the bus fare of kids going to Catholic schools, they were supporting religion and therefore in violation of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”) The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Does the Ewing Township policy violate the First Amendment? If you were a SCOTUS justice, how would you decide? Explain your reasoning.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The bus system didn’t BELONG to the religious schools, and it also provided transport to non-religious schools. I believe the system’s main goal was to give all children an equal opportunity to an education. Also, EVERYONE pays taxes. Catholics too.
The system was a blanket policy for all schools, so the Ewing Township policy doesn’t violate the first amendment. This is a matter of education, not religion. The bus system was public before the school system set it up like this for everyone with the intent of getting them to school. The fact that some of them attended catholic schools doesn’t mean that the district was in support of them. Paying money that goes into transporting kids to schools, a few of which happen to include catholic schools, is not the same thing as paying for their attendance at the school. Final verdict: Constitutional.
In my opinion, the Ewing Township policy was not in violation of the First Amendment because, like Lilly said, the district bus system was not only affiliated with Catholic schools. So therefore I think that the policy was to support children going to the school of their choice, and by denying them of their choice would be violating the parents and children's rights to equality. Also, I don't agree with Everson's claim that "...by paying the bus fare of kids going to Catholic schools, they were supporting religion". I disagree with that because the taxpayers were paying to support children learning, not religion.
The school district did not provide reimbersement solely for Catholic School students. It was just for any student taking the bus to school. I actually think it would have been less fair if the district had specifically not paid for students who went to Catholic schools.
The Ewing Township was not in violation of the first amendment. This policy didn't violate the constitution because it was not they showed no favoritism and the buses had no affiliation with the catholic school thus it can not be viewed as giving money to a catholic establishment.
The Ewing Township school district's motive was not to exclusively support a religion, but to provide adequate payment towards transportation costs. This was the only way they could do so while respecting everyone the same. If they were to exclude people attending Catholic schools from the reimbursement, they would be violating the Constitution.
If I was Supreme Court Justice, I would rule in favor of the defendant and proclaim that the reimbursement process is Constitutional, as it provides equal opportunity for everyone.
I belive that the bus system wasent leaning torts a religion, I think it just so happen that there were releigious schools that the buses where driving too, there for i dont thing it was a violation of the 1st amendment.
Ummmmm.... my dad wants to make a comment to for the fun of disagree with everybody!! hahahahaha
I believe that the school district has a responsibility, if it chooses, to help students get to public school. Families have the option of sending their children to public or private school. The school district has no responsibility for helping private school students get to private school. So, providing transprotation to a private religious school is a violation of the first amendment as it promotes religious goals.
I agree that the reimbursement is not in violation of the First Amendment.
If the tax had been for support of just the bus system to Catholic schools, I could see how that might be a violation of the first amendment, but since the tax covered all schools, it was not in support of the Catholic schools or religion, but was in support of transportation for kids to their respective schools. I don't think this violates the first amendment in any way, and if I were deciding on this case, I would say it's perfectly constitutional.
Post a Comment