The No Funding Principle

[Volokh, Eugene]

        1)  If I'm not mistaken, the GI Bill was "compensation" in the
sense of reward for past service, but at least as to many of the GIs was
not part of their initial induction contract; but I would welcome
clarification.

        2)  In any case, if "there is no question . . . that government
employees can spend their salaries as they see fit," why is there any
question that voucher recipients can spend their vouchers as they see
fit?  As a policy matter, I do of course often draw lines between
compensation (contractually required or not) for services rendered and
noncompensatory subsidies, even those that strike me as wise investments
-- but I'm just not sure why the Establishment Clause draws such a line.

        3)  Even if the GI Bill can be explained this way, Pell Grants
are not compensation -- they are indeed educational vouchers.


Marc Stern writes:

> The GI bill was also a form of defered compensation.There is no
> question of
> course that government employees can spend their salaries as they see
> fit.
> Someone raised the problem of medicare funds and sectasrian
> hospitals.Title VI
> does not impose religious restrictions on hte use of governmnet
> funds,and so
> such funds have been used.Even the pro-choice movemnet has not
> recently(yet)
> argued that the receipt of such funds (or medicaid funds) imposes a
> duty of
> religious neutrality on hospitals.The argumnet was made and rejected
> in the
> 1970's in conjunction with abortion in a case called (as I
> recall)Chrisman v.
> Sisters.
> .I have always assumed that this is because the funds were the
> personal
> property of the beneficiary.It is however difficult to square that
> argument
> wiht the applicability of the Title VI ban on race discrimination to
> providers
> who are paid by these programs.
> mARC sTERN