SC Has Its Own Constitutional Crisis
INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT’S “MINIMALLY ADEQUATE” RULING By FITSNEWS || If you GooYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT’S “MINIMALLY ADEQUATE” RULING By FITSNEWS || If you GooYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
33 comments
Great point on the use of “minimally adequate”…if that’s the standard everyone wants then the legislatures should codify it. Otherwise, it is judges performing the duty of the legislature in which case we don’t need them. (prolly don’t anyway, but that’s a different issue)
“the concept of ‘rule of law ” has expanded from adjudicating to legislating. The whole problem with the judicial system. Judges are appointed to interpret the law not make it say what they want. This has become the single biggest road block to freedom in the country. A huge percentage of the voters in a given state can be negated by one judge. How can that ever be right ?
In spite of the merits or good intentions of the courts, this decision moves our states education in the opposite direction needed to bring improvement and will lead to increased failure.
Any improvement must be from the parents up and not from the state down. This decision will result in more state control, less local control and completely ignores the influence of the parents roll in a child’s educational success. Expect more “Gruberish” solutions from the state that are destined to fail.
SC has proven over and over again that it can’t provide a level of education that meets national standards. The federal government needs to step in for the sake of the citizens and for the betterment of the country as a whole. Providing a cheap labor force is about the only thing SC contributes to the rest of the USA, while sucking so hard off the federal government’s tit.
Why is it that when a system is failing you want to double down on a failed top down approach.
Look at the success of the Federal approach.
Washington DC Public Schools
DC spent $29,409 per pupil in FY 2009.(Over twice that of SC) They had a 10.92 teacher /student ratio. The average educator was paid $67,000 in 2010.
In 2008, in terms of testing 36% of students demonstrated proficiency in mathematics and 39% demonstrated proficiency in reading.
Right sentiment,Dumb conclusion.
Fine argument there,but what about kids who have rotten parents?Whats your solution?
The Hell with em?
The free market has proven that it does require 100% of customers making good decisions to improve the quality of a product or service for every one. In the seventies, the US market was making crappy cars and the Japanese began to dominate the market. Some people(Rotten parents) still bought those crappy cars, but the lose of market was enough to cause American auto makers to improve quality that in the end helped all buyers. The Free market does not protect people from bad decisions yet they benefit anyway. Of course some regulation is involved, but free market incentives are the primary mover of economic progress.
Can’t you admit that some free market incentives could help public education?
See u in church.
Non responsive,but unsurprising.
You still are,in effect, saying to children who have irresponsible parents,
Drop Dead!
Your free market blather is very typical of a Right Wing extremist .They always fall back on those words anytime inconvenient facts interfere with their ideological predilections.
Hot Pussy ?
“Rebuke” must have been on your word-of-the-day toilet paper today.
This verse explains Will’s use of “rebuke” and feelings towards Nikki.
Proverbs 27:5
Open rebuke is better than secret love.
Will, you have much to say about section 3 of Article 11 “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.”
How do you reconcile Section 4 with your desire for the state to fund private schools?
Section 4 states “No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
The key word is “direct.” If the money goes to the parent or student, then it is direct. Is it?
Depends, if the legislature sets up a system whereby parents or students are given state funds that are restricted to use for private school tuition and costs, then the argument could reasonably be made that the funds are “direct” even though they pass though an intermediary.
Section 4 is likely to be problematic if the legislature seeks to put in place a system of vouchers or tax credits for private schools. The overall intent of Section 4 seems clear, the state shall not pay monies to support private schools.
The South Carolina Tuition Grants Program is a need-based fund that underwrites higher education for the state’s neediest college applicants. Participating public and private colleges administer gift-aid that does not require repayment. Increasing access for disadvantaged students, and promoting diversity within the student body are the fund’s primary objectives. Application starts with a timely-filed FAFSA that allows campus financial aid administrators to assess each applicant’s need for these grants from the State Higher Education Commission.
Article 11 deals with “Public Education”, the accepted definition of this term is K-12 Education, or any education that is free to school age children. Colleges and universities would not fall under the term public education, they would fall under “higher education”. Article 11 would not restrict how the state spends monies on colleges or universities.
Look, all I’m saying is that there is a reasonable argument to be made that the state is precluded from funding, in any form, tuition or monies that go to private K-12 schools. I believe that IF the legislature moves to create a wholesale K-12 voucher / credit / whatever program, someone is going to make that argument and the SC Supreme Court is going to decide the issue of what exactly Section 4 means.
You’re right of course.
Fits, Bible Thumper and the rest of their ilk here only play that “Constitution” card when it benefits their argument
Actually they couldn’t care LESS about the “Constitution.”
Wrong! I always put the process and the Constitution before policy preferences.
Then ,you must conclude that Lawman certainly has an arguable legal point and,as he correctly asserts, any effort along the lines you are advocating faces some serious Constitutional issues.
Agreed. There would be no US Constitutional issue since other states have vouchers to religious schools and I assume they have survived court challenges.
The state courts may make the same distinction that the Feds do. That the vouchers are going to the individual and not the institution. If the state doesn’t see it that way there is a “process” to amend the state constitution.
“…if the legislature sets up a system whereby parents or students are given state funds that are restricted to use for private school tuition and costs…”
I support vouchers for both public and private institutions. Vouchers would improve public schools also.
Article X II Section 4:
Supreme Being
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Does Diana Ross count?
Or Clarence Thomas.
Beer out the nose!
One has to wonder if you can believe in yourself as being the “supreme being”.
Nothing will ever change until you purge SC government and the courts of the smelly old people.
Being an old Tea Partier is the best! I get all the benefits of govt assistance and then blame the govt for everything that FoxNews tells me is wrong in the world. It’s a confusing, but simple life.
There’s nothing worse than an old timer downing prunes to stay regular.
My name is Jean Hoefer Toal and I will do as I damn well please. Fuck you, pissant, Billy Folks. I know your people and your kind and I am fed up with your insinuations, i was raised to be in this position and I am now the most powerful politician in South Carolina. This was my father’s dream and I have done it and gotten away with it. If you don’t like it, take it to my Fed do-boy, Bill Nettles and ask him.
Yes’ah Mr. Rich the ole Goat of a wife needs a new Michael Kors purse could u please send the Dec. check early.
Dear SCASA, SCEA and NEA,
I wish to thank you. The checks arrived this weekend. Just in time for Black Thursday.
— Jean
SC has some of the highest rated schools in America: Public or Private. So this claim is not accurate. What SC has is a massive imbalance in school funding. Which is caused by the way SC uses property taxes to fund schools.
Note: Public Utilities generally pay the most property taxes in nearly every county in SC.
If you have large public utilities like SCE&G with expensive power plants & infrastructure in your county like Lexington County. Or, you have both large Utility investments and massive factories to tax like Greenville/Spartanburg Counties. Then you have great funding for your public schools, and fantastic schools.
If you live in Government owned or operated Santee Cooper, or COOP, served areas that pay little or no property taxes; then you have no tax base to fund your schools. If you have Santee Cooper, COOPs and no industry only farm lands, then you really don’t have any tax money for schools. Except from the poor people who live there.
It’s simple math. Sell Santee Cooper and COOP assets to public utilities that pay taxes. Funny thing is: SCE&G rates are the same, or lower, than Santee Cooper’s COOPS sell electric power. Thus, you get cheap power and paid for public schools.
PROBLEM SOLVED, with no tax increases from the public.