Writing for the dissent, Rutledge goes into same history of
First Am. as majority. But he goes further: “The object was broader
than separating church in state in this narrow sense. It was to
create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of
religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding
every form of public aid or support for religion.”
b. Paying for the bus fare of parochial children “aids the
parents in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are
sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training
and teaching.” This is establishing religion.
1. This echoes Jackson’s point in his separate dissent.
c. “Paying for transportation is no more, nor is it any less
essential to education, whether religious or secular, than payment
for tuition, for teachers’ salaries, or buildings, equipment and
necessary materials. Nor is it any less directly related, in a
[parochial school], to the primary religious objective all those
essential items of cost are intended to achieve.”
1. Clearly, Rutledge is concerned just how far-reaching an impact
this decision could have. If transportation is paid for, why not
buildings? Dave, agreeing with Rutledge, says it is easy to extend
the majority’s decision to vouchers and buildings for parochial
schools, etc. This is a very persuasive arg.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to State Rutledge-Frankfurter-Jackson-Burton Dissent on the Everson case.. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.