| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2007 08:47:31 AM |
| Object: |
Church, state and taxpayers |
Church, state and taxpayers
By Cass R. Sunstein | March 11, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/11/church_state_and_taxpayers/
[excerpt
Which brings us to the current controversy. The president's faith-based
initiatives aim to eliminate "obstacles to the participation of faith-based
.. . . organizations in the provision of social services." So the Bush
administration has been spending taxpayer money to hold conferences to
promote the use of faith-based organizations. Some have challenged these
expenditures of federal money and contend that, as taxpayers, they have
standing to do so.
Judge Richard Posner, writing for a majority of the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, agreed. He acknowledged that earlier court challenges involved
specific congressional appropriations for the benefit of private religious
groups. By contrast, the challenge here involved the Bush administration's
use of general appropriations for its own conferences, not for religious
groups. Judge Posner deemed these differences irrelevant. If the Bush
administration used a general appropriation to fund the Catholic Church,
surely taxpayers could mount a challenge. And if the executive branch used
taxpayer money to build its own church or mosque, taxpayers could also
complain, even if private religious groups were not receiving a nickel. Or
so Judge Posner concluded.
The Bush administration disagrees. Before the Supreme Court, its most
ambitious argument is that taxpayers can sue in federal court only when
challenging a specific congressional mandate. In its view, the executive
branch can use a general appropriation free from judicial review at the
behest of taxpayers. This is an alarming argument, and the court should
reject it. The executive branch often has broad discretion under general
appropriations. If it uses those appropriations to fund religions,
taxpayers should be allowed to complain.
The Bush administration also argues that taxpayers should be allowed to
complain only if taxpayer money is dispersed outside the government. If the
court accepted this argument, taxpayers would still be able to object to
any financial support directly to religious institutions. Even so, the
administration's argument would render the executive branch immune from
taxpayer challenge if it used public money to finance its own operations --
including those that have the purpose and effect of supporting particular
religions.
There is a much larger issue in the background here. For a generation, many
religious institutions have been working both to reduce restrictions on
federal aid to religion and to limit people's standing to challenge those
restrictions in court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, have
accepted their arguments; Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel
Alito may well join them.
People have contended that for some social services, the government can
fund a variety of institutions, including religious ones. But it would be
most unfortunate if the Supreme Court imposed severe limits on taxpayers'
ability to question whether their money is being used in violation of the
Constitution.
Cass R. Sunstein, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, is the author
of "Infotopia."
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
