FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W256807956> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W256807956 startingPage "431" @default.
• W256807956 abstract "In April 2000 issue of THE JOURNAL,1 professors Elizabeth and Andrew Lugg roundly criticize Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Jackson v. Benson,2 which held on a 4-to-2 vote that Milwaukee's voucher program astutely tilted Parental Choice Plan (MPCP)-was constitutional, and then cautiously predicted that Supreme Court would wait for a voucher plan that was available to parents generally and uphold it as consonant with Establishment Clause.3 At same time, they concluded that had Court decided to grant certiorari in Benson, it would have had no but to reverse Wisconsin court and warned that there is no guarantee that ... [a more general] voucher plan would pass Supreme Court review.4 Focusing on Establishment Clause ruling in Benson,5 Luggs traced selected Supreme Court precedents, principally Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist,6 Sloan v. Lemon,7 and Mueller v. Allen,8 to reach conclusion that four members voting in majority in Benson were wrong in four respects: * First, they failed to adequately analyze whether effect of amended MPCP would be to advance religion. * Second, provision of amended MPCP that requires participating religious schools to opt-out of religious activities is exactly type of government mandate that is definition of government inhibiting religion. * Third, a program with such limited eligibility as amended MPCP does not begin to reach definition of as stated by Court in Nyquist, Sloan, and Mueller. * Finally, very fact that religious schools would benefit from a state program would raise specter of religious leaders lobbying state legislature for increased funds which, as Court stated in Nyquist and Lemon, would be excessively politically entangling religion with government.9 In accompanying Counterpoint,10 Professor Frank Kemerer more comprehensively canvases Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence11 and more confidently predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to uphold a publicly funded voucher program and would have done so had Court seen fit to take Milwaukee case in 1998.12 Although his prediction about Court's prospective position is not starkly different from Luggs', his interpretation of Supreme Court's precedents-as evidence in his application of them to MPCP-reveals dramatic distinction between two views. Moreover, Kemerer had advantage of Court's intervening plurality decision in Mitchell v. Helms, 13 which he read as evidencing that at least six Justices interpret vouchers as consonant with Establishment Clause.14 Presumably, Luggs would not agree with Kemerer's reading of Mitchell, just as they apparently do not ascribe any significance15 to what Kemerer reads in Agostini v. Felton16 as a reconstituted Lemon test.17 In any event, only reservations one might have about Kemerer's confidence are Court's unpredictable use of Lemon test18 and adverse balance of lower courts' voucher caselaw.19 Even Luggs cautiously are placing their bet with Kemerer,20 at least for sort of more general voucher plan that Court will likely put to test.21 More importantly, although Kemerer explicitly avoids making any judgment about wisdom of vouchers22 and Luggs at least hint at being strict separationists,23 this issue is likely to be ultimately resolved in political, rather than judicial, arena based on public policy and, to extent ascertainable, pedagogical efficacy.24 In examining Kemerer vis-a-vis Luggs at this timely juncture, when President Bush has put vouchers near top of his agenda, see if you can separate your constitutional and political analyses. Does one's assessment of choice in context of education, like that in context of abortion, inevitably depend on one's religious point of view? …" @default.
• W256807956 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W256807956 creator A5061025573 @default.
• W256807956 date "2001-07-01" @default.
• W256807956 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W256807956 title "What Will Be the Supreme Court's Choice on Choice?" @default.
• W256807956 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W256807956 type Work @default.
• W256807956 sameAs 256807956 @default.
• W256807956 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W256807956 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W256807956 hasAuthorship W256807956A5061025573 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C105458232 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C2775884135 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C2778323131 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C2994536602 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C47855350 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W256807956 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C105458232 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C11413529 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C121955636 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C138885662 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C144024400 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C162324750 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C17744445 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C199539241 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C2775884135 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C2776512386 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C2778137410 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C2778272461 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C2778323131 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C2994536602 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C41008148 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C41895202 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C47855350 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C48103436 @default.
• W256807956 hasConceptScore W256807956C83009810 @default.
• W256807956 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W256807956 hasLocation W2568079561 @default.
• W256807956 hasOpenAccess W256807956 @default.
• W256807956 hasPrimaryLocation W2568079561 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W114323662 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W1513139777 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W1555940954 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W1566247290 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W1981414487 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W2032155378 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W2325584868 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W233033427 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W240999997 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W2496391483 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W277917080 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W290815164 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W3121519882 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W3122931036 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W338120031 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W348773844 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W350072501 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W968812532 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W2271675279 @default.
• W256807956 hasRelatedWork W3121719272 @default.
• W256807956 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W256807956 isParatext "false" @default.
• W256807956 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W256807956 magId "256807956" @default.
• W256807956 workType "article" @default.