A new federal law tells schools to teach the U.S. Constitution on or before this Saturday (for “Constitutional Day”) or lose federal funding. Could it mean that in the future Congress could tell schools to teach the Bible as fact, or that evolution is myth and creationism or intelligent design is fact?

You may recall that, recently, President Bush said he (and Sen. Frist) supported public schools teaching creationism along with evolution. Many now suspect that the religious right will try to get Congress to use its spending power to require public schools to teach what the right wants – or lose funding.

Public schools are already required to teach “abstinence” and “monogamous marriage” to obtain certain federal grants. But it’s also possible that Congress could condition federal funding on schools teaching creationism and the evils and mythical causes of homosexuality. Sound far-fetched?

The concern is more real because of an innocuous law passed by Congress in 2004. It requires “every school and college receiving federal money” to devote time to teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17 of each year, the day the document was adopted in 1787. What passed in Congress without much fanfare is now generating controversy over just what the federal government, now firmly in conservative control, could spell for schools and colleges.

Don’t be surprised if some schools sue over the constitutionality of “Constitution Day.” The 10th Amendment reserves to the states the plenary powers over education, and usually the state constitution defines those powers. Federal courts only intervene in curricular issues when someone challenges a policy on federal constitutional grounds.

While history holds that the Constitution and Congress have largely left education to the states, recent events suggest that the federal government has grown increasingly interested in local education. In fact, when Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980, he championed the notion that the Department of Education should be abolished and that Congress should prohibit federal courts from any power over schools, particularly with regard to bussing cases. By contrast, in 2001, President Bush’s first legislative victory was passing the “No Child Left Behind Act,” which, in a robust 800 pages, requires states to meet a host of standards to ensure federal funding.

Ironically, conservatives loathed liberally-based Congressional strings from the ’60s to the ’80s, but, now that conservatives control Congress, it’s payback time – and we have good reason for fear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of Congress to attach “conditions” for receiving federal funds. For example, in order to receive highway funds, the court held that Congress may require states to have a drinking age no lower than 21.

Not only are states subject to such conditions, but so are public and private colleges that receive any form of federal support, even tax-exempt status. For example, federal statutes prohibit schools and colleges from discriminating on the basis of “race” and “sex” if they receive federal funds.

Bob Jones University, which had rules that discriminated against blacks and women, claimed such laws violated its associational and religious views. But the Supreme Court upheld such Congressional acts, reasoning that the government’s interest in eradicating racial bias, for instance, trumped any rights the college had.

In November, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving whether Congress can deny federal funds to law schools that will not provide military recruiters the same access to students they provide to other employers (that don’t engage in gay bias). Law schools contend that Congress forces them to choose between giving up the money and exercising their political and associational views. Most legal observers assume the court will side with the military, as it most always does. But the outcome of the case could determine whether Congress can impose funding conditions that advance a conservative agenda.

Even if the Department of Education does not aggressively enforce the law, private groups certainly will. For example, if a school invites the American Civil Liberties Union to speak on “Constitution Day,” and the speaker mentions Lawrence v. Texas, certainly Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law & Justice is going to contend that the school is a public forum. The ACLJ gets equal time to present its views on the Constitution and why Lawrence was incorrectly decided. If the school doesn’t allow ACLJ equal time, the school gets sued.

Oh, and then the Ku Klux Klan wants to tell students why Brown v. Board of Education was incorrectly decided…. This is probably why the founders didn’t want Congress in the school business.