“Any interpretation of legislation, therefore, which would deny the fullest voluntary freedom in religious worship would not only be contrary to these American historical expressions of faith, but would also offend against the First Amendment with its bell-clanging proclamation of religious freedom.”
How later courts described this case
- “Any interpretation of legislation, therefore, which would deny the fullest voluntary freedom in religious worship would not only be contrary to these American historical expressions of faith, but would also offend against the First Amendment with its bell-clanging proclamation of religious freedom.”
- constitutionality of busing for private school children upheld even if parochial schools receive indirect financial benefit from busing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
With the result reached by the majority of this Court I am in accord.
It is my opinion that the Act of June 15, 1965, P. L. 133, 24 P.S. §13-1361 (amending §1361 of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, 24 P.S. §13-1361), which, “for the health, welfare and safety of the children of the Commonwealth”, requires that school districts under certain circumstances provide free transportation for pupils attending nonpublic elementary and high schools not operated for profit, is valid legislation. The principal challenge to such legislation proceeds upon the theory that it is offensive to both the Constitution of the United States 1 and the Constitution of this Commonwealth. 2
As to whether this statute violates the United States Constitution, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , 67 S. Ct. 504 (1947), is controlling: Everson compels the conclusion that the instant statute does not violate the First Amendment. As to whether this statute violates the Constitution of this Commonwealth I am of the opinion that it does not.
In this Commonwealth, the parents and guardians of children are compelled by law to send such children, up to a certain age, to school. In Pierce v. Society of *228 Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925), the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that, if a parochial school meets the secular educational requirements of the state, parents and guardians who send children to such parochial school satisfy the “compulsory education” mandate of the state.
The primary purpose of the instant statute is to insure the safety and the well-being of children, whose parents and guardians are compelled by law to send them to school, while such children are being transported to and from such school, whether the school be public or parochial. The statute constitutes an exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth; its emphasis is upon the welfare and safety of children while they are being transported to and from school and not upon the nature of the school to or from which they are being transported. Its aim is secular, not religious.
The framers of our Constitution contemplated that the church and the state be kept separate and apart and that the state maintain a status of impartiality and neutrality toward all religions and religious beliefs. The instant legislation “neither advances nor inhibits religion” in the constitutional sense (See: School District of Abington, Township, Pa., v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 , 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963), but simply provides a method of safe transportation for children while performing the state-compelled duty of attending school.
In my view, neither the U. S. Constitution nor the Constitution of this Commonwealth prohibits or proscribes this statute so vital to the well-being of children pursuing their education.
Specifically, the First Amendment.
Specifically, Article I, §3, Article III, §18 and Article X, §2.