Washington Watch

second keypad

Install a

Standard Home
Security System

$99* Installed

24-hour
monitoring-

$26.95/mo.

FREE

second keypad

A Brink's home is a safer home. As one of the most

recognized and trusted names in security, we offer the

latest technology in home protection against fire, break-ins

and burglary-24 hours a day.

And if you already have a system that isn't monitored by

Brink's, don't worry. We have a special conversion offer

just for you.

Call today and make your home a Brink's home.

800.981.6352

Offer expires December 15, 1999.

IIIIIBRINKS

HOME SECURITY

`Brink's Home Security, Inc., is an affiliate of Brink's Incorporated. Connection fee for standard hard-wired
residential system includes two perimeter sensors, motion detector, siren, control panel, keypad, back-up
power supply, phone jack and Brink's warning signs. Additional equipment may be installed. Applicable
taxes and permit fees not included. Three-year minimum monitoring contract required. (In California, two-
year monitoring contract is required. Total monitoring price, $646.80.) Offer may not be combined with any
other discount. Offer available for new residential installations only, with approved credit. Conversion offer
is available to non-Brink's customers who have fulfilled their agreement with their existing service provider.
Conversion of sub-quality systems may require additional fees. ©1999 Brink's Home Security, Inc., 8880 Esters
Blvd., Irving, TX 75063. CA#ACO3843, FL#EF0000921, MSP#000656, NC#1078-CSA, SC#BA-557,
V1,t,*
TN Alarm Cert1C-0053, UT#97-325152-6501, VA#11-1964, Class A-2705 020592A, OK#587,
CT#106141. Market Source: JEWISHNEWS

10/8
1999

28 Detroit Jewish News

Parochial School Funding
Survives A Challenge

JAMES D. BESSER
Washington Correspondent

Washington
he new Supreme Court ses-
sion began with a bang this
week as the justices let stand
an Arizona law giving juicy
tax breaks to individuals who donate
scholarship money for private and
parochial schools.
That means the justices ducked a
chance to draw new guidelines for the
controversial issue of parochial school
funding, but Jewish activists on both
sides of the debate say the court could
do that later in the year, when it will
hear another key church-state case.
In the Arizona case, the court let
stand a divided ruling by the Arizona
Supreme Court upholding $500 in
dollar-for-dollar tax credits for individ-
uals who donate to eligible private and
parochial schools.
That's a blatant violation of church-
state separation, aid opponents say.
But Orthodox Jewish groups favor
such programs.
The decision "clearly signals that
our nation's highest court does not
view properly structured efforts to sup-
port parents' full range of educational
choices — including choosing
parochial education — as unconstitu-
tional," said Nathan Diament, director
of the Orthodox Union's Institute for
Public Affairs.
But the decision not to take the case
"does not have any precedential value,"
said Mark Pelavin, associate director of
the Religious Action Center of Reform
Judaism, a leading parochial aid oppo-
nent.
"We shouldn't read too much into
it.
A case that could dramatically
change church-state law, Mitchell v.
Helms, is on the court calendar for
December. That case involves pro-
grams that use government education
funds to provide books, computers and
other materials to private and parochial
schools.
Again, Orthodox groups support
the program, while liberal Jewish orga-
nizations oppose.
"Our schools have benefited from
this program for 30 years; knocking it
down would be a great loss," said Abba
Cohen, Washington director for
Agudath Israel of America, an

7

Orthodox group that supports the
constitutionality of the program.
Not so the American Jewish
Congress.
Marc Stern, the group's legal direc-
tor, believes the program could be
ruled unconstitutional on the basis of
existing law.
With this court, you can never
tell," he said. "They could use it to set
entirely new standards for deciding aid
to parochial schools." Just as important
for the Jewish community, Stern
argued, is the court's ongoing effort to
return power for making and enforcing

A more telling
case is on the
docket.

regulations to the states.
"That's a problem for us," he said.
"It's been our community's experience
that the federal government has been
more protective of civil rights than
have been the individual states." The
accelerating shift back to the states also
poses a problem in terms of Jewish
influence on public policy, Stern said,
since Jewish groups have concentrated
their political firepower in
Washington.
That shift also could be a factor
when the court considers the Violence
Against Women Act, which allows rape
and domestic violence victims to sue
their assailants. The 1994 law was
overturned by a lower court — again
because of the argument that Congress
was usurping the rights of the states.
"It would be a terrible thing if it
was struck down for its own sake," said
Richard Foltin, legislative director for
the American Jewish Committee.
"But worse would be if the court
used this as part of a wholesale recon-
sideration of whether the Congress is
the place to go to protect basic rights.

7)

Bush Doesn't Cower

Last week, Texas Gov. George W.
Bush, the high-flying GOP presiden-
tial front-runner and champion
fund-raiser, was taking it on the chin
from Jewish leaders upset by his