—SCOTUS’s membership is more conservative, and less likely to rule that way.—
And also willing to chuck their strict construtionism whenever it becomes a burden.
I think there is quite a difference between using tax money via food stamps to pay for religious food, and using tax money via couchers to pay for religious schools. The difference is that in the second case alone, taxpayers are being forced to pay for the teaching of opinions with which they do not agree (which Jefferson said he abhorred). People like O’Reily object all the time, quite rightly, when tax money is used to fund “educational” campaigns that promote positions that are actually quite politically contentious.
This is a pretty serious issue for democracy if you think about it: supposedly, it is supposed to work that the will of the people ultimately controls what the government does. But what happens when the government starts spending money in ways which are determined to influence the will of the people? Isn’t that working against the very point of a system of representation? While for the most part our representatives can enact programs that the public may not think are warranted, those programs are quite different when they aim specifically to change people’s minds, as opposed to simply imforming them. This is why government funding for evangelical organizations is so abhorrent.
And public schools teach evolution which many Christians do not agree with. Why is the status quo use of government funds to teach contentious ideas but the use of vouchers isn’t?
And, again, tax money supports the GI Bill and Pell Grants neither of which restrict recipients to secular schools.
I do understand your objection, but I don’t think it makes the program unconstitutional. It arguably makes it unwise, but that’s a policy issue, not a constitutional issue.
I’m not at all sure that school vouchers violate the first amendment (although I am not in favor of them for other reasons)But school vouchers raise at least two issues that Pell grants scholarships and VA benefits don’t, which might account for the lack of fuss (although they make no difference as to constitutionality). Neither Pell Grants nor VA benefits take the money from the budget of an existing public college system that the school district is required to run. The last voucher system I heard about in my area proposed a voucher for 40% of the cost of attendance, and that money was going to come from the school district’s budget. Sounds like they’re 60% ahead for each student they lose, until you realize that the district was going to lose the voucher money for kids who have always attended private schools. The equivalent for Pell grants would be if NYC had to pay all the Pell grants for NYC residents who went to private colleges out of the City University budget. The other difference is that scholarships, Pell grants and other financial aid are all based on more than just enrollment- you can’t get a scholarship with rotten grades, or a Pell grant if you can afford the tuition or VA benefits if you were never in the military.