Educational Choice Legislation after Edgewood v. Kirby: A Proposal for Clearing the Sectarian Hurdle.

States can reform the ineffective educational system by adopting a free educational choice system. A free educational choice system would reimburse parents of educational expenditures through a voucher or tax deduction and will give parents the freedom to select the school their child attends. While free choice may present a viable solution for educational reform, one major obstacle is the possibility free choice would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by providing aid to sectarian schools. A free educational choice legislation will be subject to review under the Lemon v. Kurtzman test to determine if the financial aid to sectarian schools is unconstitutional. The Lemon Test requires (1) the statute in question have a secular purpose, (2) the principle or primary effect of the statute does not advance nor inhibit religion, and (3) the statute does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. A proposed free choice legislation will pass the secular purpose prong of the Lemon test because choice of educational institutions promotes plurality and individualism. Therefore, it furthers the public interest protected by the free exercise clause. Further, a free choice legislation would pass the second prong of the test. Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind established that state programs which are neutral in offering educational assistance without mention of religion, do not violate the primary effects test of Lemon. Lastly, the final prong of the Lemon Test will be satisfied if the free choice legislation avoids an administrative state system to perform regular monitoring or evaluation of non-public schools. A free educational choice system can reform the problematic system in place today, and states will optimize the probability of success of their free choice legislation if they adhere closely to the guidelines of the Lemon Test

Foreign Investment in Mexico from the Perspective of the Foreign Investor.

A factor contributing to the continuation of the economic revolution in Mexico has been, and will continue to be, foreign investment. The liberalized foreign-investment regulations and the positive attitude of the Foreign Investment Commission (FIC) in approving foreign investment proposals promote a more favorable environment for foreign investors. The Mexican government recently completed negotiating the NAFTA, a proposed free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada. The government is now considering what additional actions may be required to compete successfully with those other nations trying to attract scarce investment funds. Opportunities for foreign investors in Mexico are brighter than they have been in fifty years. Nevertheless, investors will make better decisions by being mindful of the substantial cultural and legal differences between the two countries, as well as the history of foreign-investment regulation in Mexico. This is true in negotiating the establishment of investments, joint ventures, and licensing agreements. With respect to the history of the FIL Regulation, an understanding of these directives is fundamental to predicting what the future may hold in this important area of human activity. Most foreign investors look forward to the day when investment policies in Mexico will be more transparent. Mr. Jaime Serra, the Minister of Trade and Industrial Development, announced the FIL and the FIL Regulations will be amended in order to adopt the NAFTA. These amendments, Mexico’s liberalization of foreign investment controls, and commitments Mexico undertook in the NAFTA, move Mexico closer to a market driven and controlled by economic forces rather than government edict