Supreme Court hears arguments in Ohio voucher case. (In The Capital).Cleveland's private school voucher A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate by which parents are given the ability to pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school (UK state school) to which they were assigned. program diverts "massive amounts" of tax money to religious schools and should be declared unconstitutional unconstitutional adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract (such as a covenant which purports to limit transfer of real property only to Caucasians) which violate one or more provisions of the U. S. Constitution. , an attorney for Ohio parents and taxpayers told the Supreme Court Feb. 20. The justices heard arguments in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which tested the permissibility of school vouchers in relation to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. , which challenges an Ohio law that established a voucher plan in Cleveland. The closely watched case, which Americans United helped sponsor, is considered one of the most important church-state controversies to come before the court in recent years. Arguing against the constitutionality of vouchers, attorney Bob Chanin pointed out that under the program, 96 percent of the voucher aid goes to religious schools. He called this an unconstitutional diversion of tax aid to religion. "Ohio can make bad choices, but not unconstitutional ones," he said. Representing the state of Ohio, Assistant Attorney General Judith L. French countered that the Cleveland plan merely allows parents to choose a religious school among other options. "This is a neutral program that offers true private choice to parents," French said. Several justices appeared clearly sympathetic to vouchers. Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed at Chanin's assertion that Ohio could improve Cleveland's public schools by spending more money, asserting, "It's not a money problem, it's a monopoly problem." Justice David H. Souter, however, seemed wary of the Cleveland scheme. Noting that most of the aid goes to religious schools, Souter asserted, "There is something specious spe·cious adj. 1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument. 2. Deceptively attractive. about this notion of wide open choice." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor (born March 26 1930) is an American jurist who served as the first female Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006. She was considered a strict constructionist. is widely perceived as the crucial swing vote on the closely divided court. O'Connor questioned both sides aggressively, though she seemed to express more skepticism over Chanin's position. At one point O'Connor, noting that Cleveland students can also choose to go to alternative types of public schools or get tutorial aid, said "If anything, this program is skewed skewed curve of a usually unimodal distribution with one tail drawn out more than the other and the median will lie above or below the mean. skewed Epidemiology adjective Referring to an asymmetrical distribution of a population or of data against religion." Solicitor General An officer of the U.S. Justice Department who represents the federal government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The solicitor general is charged with representing the Executive Branch of the U.S. government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Theodore B. Olsion also argued in favor of vouchers, representing the Bush Administration. A decision in the case is expected by the end of June. For more details, see "Supreme Test," November 2001 Church & State. |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion