The fraud that is education funding lawsuits and even the nonsensical discussions surrounding them is really sickening when you think about it.
Education funding lawsuits are simply theft by government action.
Our court re-interpreted the word “cherish” in Part II of our State Constitution to mean pay for government education with a broad-based tax.
They also deemed education a “substantive” right if I remember correctly. And if I don’t remember correctly it doesn’t matter because words don’t have any meaning in an education funding suit. They are simply a means to an end.
Take Ohio for example.
They actually have an education clause in their State Constitution - unlike NH.
The Ohio Constitution says that the State shall provide a “thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state”.
The Ohio version of our Claremont fraud is the Ohio funding fraud known as “Derolf”.
In the Derolf case the State of Ohio was sued for more money for government schools, first under “equity,” then under “adequacy”. See we ARE teaching evolution in school.
Funny taxpayers are not allowed to sue under “thorough and efficient” instead of simply going to the polls no longer voting for education FAILURE or EXCESS.
“Thorough and efficient” are actually mentioned in the Ohio Constitution. Imagine that?
I wonder what it means to say "thorough and efficient" in regards to government schools? Would testing teachers to see if they can do math or write an understandable paragraph be efficient?
How about instead of coming up with an ever-evolving “adequacy” amount for spending on government education, what if “efficient” meant no more than a certain amount could be spent on administration?
Here are some FACTS about education funding fraud suits:
In Ohio, the first attempt to extort money from taxpayers for government schools was the case; Miller v. Korns, 107 Ohio St. 287, 140 N.E. 773 (Ohio 1923).
The State Supreme court threw it out.
The second attempt was: Board of Education Cincinnati v. Walter, 58 Ohio St. 2d 368, 390 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio 1979).
The State Supreme court threw that out as well.
Then in 1997 along comes an activist Ohio court in the Derolf case, along with a national agenda by other like-minded activist State court judges to change the entire United States education system to make it even more vulnerable to suits at a national level.
This is why NH voters should reject this tar pit known as Claremont and any amendment that does not remove the court from micromanaging our schools.
So if by chance you run into an education funding expert please ask him why if the 1989 Kentucky suit (Rose Decision) was so successful and a model for New Hampshire, why was Kentucky sued again in 2003 in a case known as Young v. Williams?
The education funding fraud case, Young v. Williams was finally decided by the Kentucky State Supreme Court on February 13, 2007. And the court has now said in part:
"Ultimately, increases in education funding must be the product of political will, not judicial decree," the court stated in granting summary judgment to the state legislature.
So almost twenty years after the Kentucky Courts extort billions of tax dollars for government schools they go back to what the 1923 and 1979 courts said.
Don't let New Hampshire follow this route.