Opinion ID: 2230068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The pre-Aguilar Option

Text: The Majority finally urges that chapter 390 offends the neutrality mandated by the First Amendment because, in view of Agostini, Kiryas Joel may have an alternative means by which to provide its education services (majority opn, at 696, 697)again, an unsupportable perception of endorsement concern ( see, supra, at 704). This mandate turns the constitutional analysis upside down. It does not control the constitutionality of the statute at issue, nor is it appropriate to this Court's analysis in this setting. This reliance on an abstract, premature option is, at best, advisory, and, at worst, it contradicts the legitimate presumption of constitutionality of the instant statute and creates an improper judicial balancing act in scrutinizing the constitutionality of the statute that was actually enacted ( see, supra, Part I). Indeed, the very fact that the Monroe-Woodbury School District is a party urging the constitutionality of chapter 390 more assuredly reflects that the pre- Aguilar system is not even a realistic option, no less a pre-judged constitutional one. This judicial musing is inappropriate. To support its theory, the Majority weakly relies on rhetoric from the losing side of the debate in the Legislature. This unlikely source simply cannot trump the overarching separation-of-powers presumptions by which this Court must be governed in ruling on the constitutionality of chapter 390the only enactment and issue before this Court at this time. Finally, we generally agree with the Majority's exhortation that the two sides make every effort to reach an accord (majority opn, at 697) as that would be a most decorous solution to any litigation. In view of the history of this case, however, this proposal is particularly precatory. In the end, the role of this Court is to decide the case presented and establish the guiding precedent based on careful, precise constitutional analysis.