School vouchers are unconstitutional because they go against the separation of church and state.

"If parents have to get school vouchers to send their children to religious schools this violates the separation of church and state. " The parents aren't forced to send their children to a religious school. They can choose to send their child to a religious school. They can also send their child to a secular school. From the United States Bill of Rights, First Amendment [1]: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " Any school voucher law would not specify religious schools. It would generalize to any private school in America. To restrict someone from using their school voucher on something religious would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " A person has the right to choose to go to a religious school as much as he does the right to go to a secular school. "People should have the freedom to use religious facilities (mainly schools and churches) without interference by the state. " They do. "If they are required to get certification from the state then it is no longer separate from the church. " They are not required to use government funding. It's that anyone can go, but if you can't afford it, and you get a voucher from the government, then you can suddenly afford to go to a religious school. Really, school vouchers don't restrict anybody's rights. The government does not choose which private school you can go to. However, restricting the vouchers only to secular schools would be a violation of the First Amendment. "School vouchers are a prerequisite unconstitutionality. Once the state has the power to choose whether or not a student can go to a religious school versus a public school then it has the power to significantly violate the separation of church and state. " The state never gets the power to choose whether or not a student can go to a religious school versus a secular school. That is the student's choice, or, at least, the parents' choice. It is in no way the government's choice. "For example, the state could choose to deny a voucher for a student who wanted to go to a muslim school and then grant vouchers to every student who wanted to go to a catholic school. " They could, but they don't. The state could choose to fund churches. But they don't. Because it's unconstitutional. There's always the option for a government to do unconstitutional acts, but until it does, it isn't unconstitutional. "Rather than giving the state this power we should simply leave parents free to choose which ever school they want. This ensures the separation of church and state. " Yes. However, that power is already with the parents, even with school vouchers. "Rather" implies that they don't already do that. And yet, they do. "Requiring parents to get certification from the state to leave a public school is a violation of the separation. " The logic is true, but the independent clause is false. Parents are not required to get certification to leave a public school. They can send their student to a religious private school without interference from the government. However, if they are going to use money from the government, they have to apply for a voucher. However, the voucher is not associated with any one religion. Once a child has a voucher, that child can go to any private school, religious or not. So, really, they never violate this separation of church and state. "If parents can't get a voucher than their forced to keep their kids in the religiously neutral environment. " Oh, so now you're arguing that without vouchers, public schools are unconstitutional? This means that vouchers increase constitutionality. If a parent wants their child to leave public, secular school, and go to a religious private school instead, that parent can either pay for the private school or apply for a voucher. "But the neutral environment is in fact a suppression of religion within students. If students cannot grow up with their religion then they may begin to leave it behind. " So, you're arguing that having separation of church and state in public schools is unconstitutional? There's still church. "In this respect voucher programs violate the separation of church and state by suppressing religion. " No, they do not. Vouchers give the option of religion. They also give the option of secularism. If anyone does any suppression or religion, it would have to be the parents, not the government. "My alternative is that rather than trying to ensure a neutral environment schools should simply let differing faiths co-exist without intervention. " However, when different faiths want to teach different faiths, and then you throw in atheists, then you have a mess. It is simplest to leave public schools secular, and then allow kids who want to go to religious private schools to do so. So, first, my opponent claims that the existence of school vouchers leads to a connection between church and state, which is unconstitutional, even though the phrase "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in the Constitution. Then, my opponent claims that a lack of vouchers, and students going to public school, is a restriction of church by the state, and thus unconstitutional. By my opponent's logic, anything the government does is unconstitutional. Obviously, he is wrong. Public school gives people a secular, but not completely atheist, education, but they can receive a religious education at a local church, synagogue, mosque, etc. , or they can apply for a voucher for either a secular or a religious private school. In conclusion, my opponent has conflicting arguments that ultimately die against my arguments and the Constitution. 1. . http://www.usconstitution.net...