Constitutional Questions
Why is the legislature rushing along to define and cost an ‘adequate’ education? Why are they so willing to do the bidding of an unelected five-member court?
The supreme judicial court based its Claremont education funding decisions primarily on Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire constitution, which says in the relevant part: “it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, [and] to encourage private and public institutions…”
Do any of you understand how that article “imposes a duty on the State to provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child and to guarantee adequate funding”?
The court said in the second
And why does the court only mention public schools? The constitution also includes ‘seminaries’ and ‘private…institutions’. Of course, that would not help them increase the size of our state government, so they just left that part out.
Apparently there remain some unanswered questions. Please contact your legislators (notice I didn’t say legislature) and ask them to answer those questions. And maybe ask them why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranks New Hampshire #3 in the entire nation for quality of education, while the area that spends the most per pupil (Washington D.C.) is dead last in rankings. Could local control and fiscal responsibility have anything to do with it? If they can not give you straight answers, ask them if they still really support the court’s unconstitutional power grab.
No comments:
Post a Comment