Supreme Court Appears Sympathetic To Campus Recruiting

Kansas City Channel ^ | December 6, 2005 | None Listed

[Blackyce]

"The question is solely whether Congress may fund education with strings attached, other Constitutional restrictions notwithstanding. This is long-settled law; it can."

Actually, they were arguing that the general rule shouldn't apply in this case, because it would restrain free speech. They weren't arguing that congress couldn't attach restrictions period.

[airborne]

Was the Harriet Miers nomination designed to piss us off so much that we woke up and paid attention?


Strategery?

[MissouriConservative]

I'm still puzzled over that one. It might have been a Rove move, to get the base energized for a good ole fashioned fight for a real conservative....but only God and G.W. know.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Actually, they were arguing that the general rule shouldn't apply in this case, because it would restrain free speech. They weren't arguing that congress couldn't attach restrictions period."

But that IS why what they are arguing is so spurious; if the argument is that Constitutional limitations like the First Amendment apply to Congressional expenditures or programs that are optional for states or institutions to accept, that's a long dead notion. That notion died waaaaay back--Congress can tax (as long as it does so relatively evenly) and give back funds as it sees fit, for all practical purposes. The 1st Amendment has exactly diddly to do with situations like this, outside of the establishment clause, of course, and even THAT has been argued and settled law for a looooong time.