The legal question is straightforward: When public funds help parents exercise private choice in their search for better education for their children, does the aid program become unconstitutional if some of the families choose religiously affiliated schools?
As a litigant (almost always on the losing side) the ACLU has argued that the answer is “yes.”
Therefore, the ACLU’s “emergency” appeal for a delay in the Nevada Supreme Court’s July 29 hearing on the state’s new, broad-based choice program was less than sincere. Plainly the ACLU’s intent was to block any chance for Nevada families to start using state-funded education savings accounts this fall to customize educational services for their children.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is OK under the federal Constitution for religious schools to be in the choice mix so long as the parents do the actual choosing.
Numerous state courts likewise have held that their respective state constitutions do not limit public scholarships to secular schools.
As the Review-Journal’s June 30 editorial (“Time to get on with it”) suggests, no good reason exists for Nevada’s high court to postpone deciding what Nevada’s constitution requires or permits.
Arlington Heights, Ill.
The writer is a senior fellow for education policy with the Heartland Institute.
Letter writer Dowling G. Campbell (June 20) seems convinced that H.L. Mencken (critic, iconoclast) would not be surprised that his prediction of “a downright moron” elevated to the White House could prove true. Mencken was never high on our collective intellect. Commenting on the crowds at the Scopes Monkey Trial, he opined, “Those Tennessee primates came right down out of the hills!”
Along these lines, I like to remember Marshall McLuhan, futurist of a generation later. His best book was “The Media is the Message.” In it, he contends that TV is changing our thought processes. Because of the way our minds must function to make an image appear on the screen, a physical alteration is occurring in the area of our brain responsible for logical thought. We’re changing from Point A to Point B from syllogistic reasoning to something like anti-logic, a more primitive thought process.
Of course, many people take Mr. McLuhan with more that a grain of salt. But, even so, every time I hear the Donald interviewed, I wonder how much TV he watches.
Edge to Trump
There was a glaring error in your recent “Tale of the Tape” advantage breakdown in various categories between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The advantage given Ms. Clinton on immigration does not compute.
Public opinion polls show American voters prefer stronger border and interior immigration enforcement over our current lax enforcement policy. Also, polls show voters do not favor granting U.S. citizenship to foreigners who have illegally entered our country or overstayed their visas.
The truth is Donald Trump has a big advantage over Hillary Clinton on immigration.
North Las Vegas