Supreme Court slaps down crazy Colleges

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress doesn't have the authority to give the money

That was not contested by either side of the lawsuit, nor by a vast majority of the American populace, so it really doesn't matter. If you disagree, that's fine, but it is irrelevent.

Congress started giving our money to colleges for the purpose of educating people, not recruiting students into the military.

If you give out money, you can put restrictions on the reciept of those funds. You can give a check to your brother for schooling and say that you will continue to give him a check every time tuition is due, as long as he does not drink any alcohol. Even though the funds are for education, you have put a restriction on the further reciept of education funds based on alcohol consumption, and that is allowable.

[Berzerker]

That was not contested by either side of the lawsuit, nor by a vast majority of the American populace, so it really doesn't matter. If you disagree, that's fine, but it is irrelevent.

I thought we were discussing the constitutionality of the program, not its popularity or the prevailing "wisdom". The vast majority of Americans are damn near clueless about the Constitution... And it doesn't matter if neither side contested the policy of funding colleges, a judge has to decide if the program is constitutional before taking sides in the case. Congress has neither the power to fund colleges or require them to accept recruiters on their property.

If you give out money, you can put restrictions on the reciept of those funds. You can give a check to your brother for schooling and say that you will continue to give him a check every time tuition is due, as long as he does not drink any alcohol. Even though the funds are for education, you have put a restriction on the further reciept of education funds based on alcohol consumption, and that is allowable.

The Constitution does not apply to me and my brother.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What do you think a writ of cert is? Another appeal, just not an automatic one.

An appeal must be heard by the Supremes.
A petition for writ of certiorari is only heard of the Supremes decide they want to hear it. Big difference.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MrFun
I hate agreeing with Imran.

I know. I end up having to do it most of the time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
An appeal must be heard by the Supremes.
A petition for writ of certiorari is only heard of the Supremes decide they want to hear it. Big difference.

You are arguing semantics. A writ of cert is an appeal as well. It is just an appeal that does not have to be taken up by the highest court.

And no, an appeal doesn't have to be heard by the Supreme Court. The only cases they must hear are those which it has original jurisdiction (such as state v. state).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are arguing semantics.

So?? I'm not anti-semantic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And it doesn't matter if neither side contested the policy of funding colleges, a judge has to decide if the program is constitutional before taking sides in the case.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Vast majority of the American populace includes most legal scholars and judges and every justice on the Supreme Court. The Constitutionality of such funding is non-issue. Aside from a small minority, its been accepted as constitutional.

The Constitution does not apply to me and my brother.

And the Constitution doesn't say that Congress cannot attach riders to funds Congress gives out.

[Berzerker]

Perhaps I should rephrase. Vast majority of the American populace includes most legal scholars and judges and every justice on the Supreme Court. The Constitutionality of such funding is non-issue. Aside from a small minority, its been accepted as constitutional.

Which doesn't change the fact there is no power in the Constitution authorising federal funds for colleges. Ask all these people to cite the power and they wander off in different directions, usually toward conveniently subjective "interpretations"
of phrases in the Constitution never meant to be the source of authority

And the Constitution doesn't say that Congress cannot attach riders to funds Congress gives out.

Nor does it say Congress can fund colleges

[Dinner]

I have to agree with this decision. If they want the money they have to play by the rules and if they don't want to then they can foot their own bills.

[Apocalypse]

The issue is pretty elitest anyway. The people who really get hurt are the ones that are having a hard time affording law school. Pretty much all you can get from law schools are people who can go into JAG or finance, so its not like they are really going to ever be in danger.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
The issue is pretty elitest anyway. The people who really get hurt are the ones that are having a hard time affording law school. Pretty much all you can get from law schools are people who can go into JAG or finance, so its not like they are really going to ever be in danger.

There seems to a crapload of do-gooders where I am...those non-profit legal aid people...

[MrFun]

While I have to agree with this court ruling, I look forward the military recruiters facing any picketing and other forms of protest on campuses.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, obviously the law schools are going to appeal until it gets to the Supreme Court.

It does beg the question though of why someone would continue to pay tuition at an institution that couldn't even construct an arguement that could sway even 1 justice.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which doesn't change the fact there is no power in the Constitution authorising federal funds for colleges.

Take a look at the first and last clauses in Art. I, § 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .

. . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The "spending" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause grants Congress wide powers to create call kinds of mischief.

[MrFun]

It makes Zkribbler SMILE!