I want to understand what the Senator is aiming at. Maybe the words ``constitutionally permitted'' should be added. But it is this issue of the mandates that I find intriguing because we really are an Alice-in-Wonderland place. It is interesting to see the flip of liberal and conservative positions from time to time. We do not shrink at all from mandates to local school districts. We load them up one after another. We did it with title IX in the old Grove City case, where the Supreme Court made a decision this was discrimination against women and girls, and we said we were going to withhold money. We had to finally change it statutorily because the Court's decision was a statutory, not constitutional, decision. I supported that. I supported withholding the funds if they were going to discriminate against women and girls. We had a 4-year battle. We could not break a filibuster the first time, trying to reverse Grove City. But it was a mandate. We do it under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We withhold funds for failure to enforce racial discrimination laws; if education districts will not enforce them, we will withhold funds. We do it under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for discrimination against the disabled. And we do it under title III of the Age Discrimination Act, if there is discrimination on the basis of age. Interestingly, those are all statutory. They do not rise to the dignity of a constitutional prohibition.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the implications of federal mandates on local school districts and related legal cases.
Share
More from Robert Packwood
Apparently, the Court has said they cannot totally opt out of the religious situation. That is unconstitutional. They cannot say a child cannot pray. You cannot say you cannot meet after school on an equal basis, a religious or an athletic…
I am delighted to join my good friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, in supporting all of the measures for all of the reasons he said, but I will touch just a moment on why the public has a sense of uneasiness about Social…
I do not think we are compelling the school district to do anything. I think we are saying you must follow the existing constitutional law.
I believe it has said that a child can have a moment of silent prayer. I am not sure what it has said about a minute of oral prayer, a child doing it himself, so long as it does not disrupt the class, or if somebody says grace before meals.





