![[ Return to APA Home Page ]](../../../../pix/new.gif)
Guidelines for SubmissionsAPA NEWSLETTERS
Philosophy and
Computers
Jon Dorbolo, Editor
Feminism and Philosophy
Joan Callahan, Editor
Hispanic/Latino Issues in
Philosophy
Eduardo Mendieta, Editor
International
Cooperation
Olufemi Taiwo, Editor
Philosophy and Law
Richard Nunan, Editor
Philosophy and Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Issues
Timothy Murphy, Editor
Philosophy and Medicine
Rosamond Rhodes, Editor
Teaching Philosophy
Tziporah Kasachkoff &
Eugene Kelly, Co-Editors
Navigation
Newsletters Index (00:1)
apaOnline
Home Page
|
APA
Newsletters
Fall 2000
Volume 00, Number 1
Newsletter on Philosophy and Law
Recent Law Review Articles of Interest
Previous Article | Index | Next Article
Heytens, Toby J. "School Choice
and State Constitutions," 86 Virginia Law Review
117-162 (2000).
This article examines the history and constitutionality of Blaine
Amendments as potential legal barriers to possible state legislative initiatives to extend
school tuition voucher schemes to sectarian as well as nonsectarian private schools.
Blaine Amendments are provisions which appeared in roughly 30 state constitutions towards
the end of the 19th century, after James G. Blaine, an influential Reconstruction era
Republican Congressional Representative, failed to secure a federal constitutional
amendment which would have explicitly applied the First Amendment religion clauses to the
states ("No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."), and incorporated an additional
provision proscribing the use of state tax revenues to support sectarian education.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has tacitly, and sometimes
explicitly, acknowledged the States right to draft more stringent restrictions on
state support of religious institutions than are called for under the federal courts
various interpretations of the First Amendments establishment clause. With respect
to Blaine Amendments in particular, this policy was emphasized in the Supreme Courts
1989 decision to deny cert. in Witters v. State Commission for the Blind, a
case in which the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs desire to
secure state funding for his seminary training under a state program providing financial
assistance to disabled students (Witters was blind) violated Washington States
version of the Blaine Amendment. The cert. denial came after the U.S. Supreme Court
had already acknowledged, under an earlier appeal in the same case, that Witters
claim did not violate the First Amendments establishment clause.
Despite this precedent, and others suggestive of the same conclusion, Heytens argues
that the various state constitutional Blaine Amendments actually violate the federal
Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause. For
this argument, he draws heavily on the history of the federal attempt to enact the
original Blaine Amendment, arguing that this effort, and the more successful subsequent
state initiatives, were motivated chiefly by anti-Catholic bigotry. Finally, Heytens
argues more generally that, in the absence of an establishment clause prohibition against
an inclusive school voucher system, the establishment clause actually obliges States who
go down this road to include sectarian institutions in such programs.
Previous Article | Index | Next Article |