<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: vouchers unconstitutional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/</link>
	<description>A very loose interpretation of the news and happenings in and around Tampa</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:40:43 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sonny</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2264</link>
		<dc:creator>Sonny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2006 06:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2264</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s what I thought about the voucher issue:
http://www.politicalbloviation.com/archives/223</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s what I thought about the voucher issue:<br />
<a href="http://www.politicalbloviation.com/archives/223" rel="nofollow">http://www.politicalbloviation.com/archives/223</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Pinero</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2255</link>
		<dc:creator>David Pinero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2255</guid>
		<description>I heard a reference on TV that only 700 or so students were actually taking advantage of the program in the first place.  The debate is overshadowed it seems by the deafining sound of its own apparent irrelevance.

Dave</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard a reference on TV that only 700 or so students were actually taking advantage of the program in the first place.  The debate is overshadowed it seems by the deafining sound of its own apparent irrelevance.</p>
<p>Dave</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel*</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2241</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel*</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2241</guid>
		<description>E/E - that particular part of the state constitution you&#039;re mentioning has been debunked already, and if it hasn&#039;t been &quot;officially&quot; debunked here - &#039;cause the FL Constitution is a terribly inconsistent document, to be honest - it could be very, very easily (in re: Valley Forge Christian, for starters).

Another interesting thing is that, Max for instance, your comment reflects what the situation &quot;should&quot; be.  For instance, &#039;My tax dollars support public schools.&#039;  At this particular moment, that&#039;s not up to you! Look at that appraiser&#039;s report when it shows up this month.  They gave themselves lots of wiggle room!  B*stards! Or &quot;Misuse and abuse&quot; - even then, not really because that term has some pretty specific meanings.  You&#039;re saying it &quot;should&quot; be considered abuse becuase it&#039;s stupid and unfair. 

And just so you know I&#039;m not talking out my *ss, this one question - are educational vouchers constitutional? - was the entire final exam for pre-law ConLaw, and I set the curve with a 4.0 (Yes, I did used to be an overacheiver of sorts - what in God&#039;s name happened?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E/E &#8211; that particular part of the state constitution you&#8217;re mentioning has been debunked already, and if it hasn&#8217;t been &#8220;officially&#8221; debunked here &#8211; &#8217;cause the FL Constitution is a terribly inconsistent document, to be honest &#8211; it could be very, very easily (in re: Valley Forge Christian, for starters).</p>
<p>Another interesting thing is that, Max for instance, your comment reflects what the situation &#8220;should&#8221; be.  For instance, &#8216;My tax dollars support public schools.&#8217;  At this particular moment, that&#8217;s not up to you! Look at that appraiser&#8217;s report when it shows up this month.  They gave themselves lots of wiggle room!  B*stards! Or &#8220;Misuse and abuse&#8221; &#8211; even then, not really because that term has some pretty specific meanings.  You&#8217;re saying it &#8220;should&#8221; be considered abuse becuase it&#8217;s stupid and unfair. </p>
<p>And just so you know I&#8217;m not talking out my *ss, this one question &#8211; are educational vouchers constitutional? &#8211; was the entire final exam for pre-law ConLaw, and I set the curve with a 4.0 (Yes, I did used to be an overacheiver of sorts &#8211; what in God&#8217;s name happened?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Editengine</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2226</link>
		<dc:creator>Editengine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2226</guid>
		<description>K, I just read the whole story, some of the kids went to religious schools, which would have caused a problem anyway. The constitution does specifically say State money cannot be given directly or indirectly to religious institutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>K, I just read the whole story, some of the kids went to religious schools, which would have caused a problem anyway. The constitution does specifically say State money cannot be given directly or indirectly to religious institutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheMax</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2224</link>
		<dc:creator>TheMax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2224</guid>
		<description>Vouchers are a misuse and abuse of tax dollars.  My taxes go to support the public schools not some kids â€œrightâ€ to take that money and go to a private school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vouchers are a misuse and abuse of tax dollars.  My taxes go to support the public schools not some kids â€œrightâ€ to take that money and go to a private school.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Editengine</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2222</link>
		<dc:creator>Editengine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2222</guid>
		<description>I am confused were these vouchers able to be used at parochial schools?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am confused were these vouchers able to be used at parochial schools?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel*</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2217</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel*</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2217</guid>
		<description>K - They&#039;re not unconstitutional at all, except that on paper they now are.  In fact, though, they fall within original intent, they are neutral in content, and they don&#039;t violate any specific mandates or broad rules.  

Just because something is not unconstitutional doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s a good idea, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>K &#8211; They&#8217;re not unconstitutional at all, except that on paper they now are.  In fact, though, they fall within original intent, they are neutral in content, and they don&#8217;t violate any specific mandates or broad rules.  </p>
<p>Just because something is not unconstitutional doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s a good idea, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2216</link>
		<dc:creator>Q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:06:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2216</guid>
		<description>I am floored.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am floored.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kate</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2215</link>
		<dc:creator>kate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2215</guid>
		<description>Vouchers are unconstitutional. I&#039;m surprised that anyone would be surprised.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vouchers are unconstitutional. I&#8217;m surprised that anyone would be surprised.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel*</title>
		<link>http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-2214</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel*</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sticksoffire.com/2006/01/05/vouchers-unconstitutional/#comment-2214</guid>
		<description>Stupid and unconstitutional are two very different things.  Economic efficiency is a third, but, hey, who asked?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stupid and unconstitutional are two very different things.  Economic efficiency is a third, but, hey, who asked?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
