Alencon's Place
Friday, March 16, 2007
Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation
http://alencon13.blogspot.com/2007/03/hein-vs-freedom-from-religion.html
[excerpt]
This is a case before the Supreme Court which asks whether or not taxpayers
have the legal standing to bring a case against spending by the executive
branch of the government, which they claim violates the Establishment
Clause of the 1st Amendment, simply because they are taxpayers.
Normally, one cannot make a legal claim unless one can show a direct
injury. The government spending money on a program you disapprove of is not
considered a direct injury and you can’t sue simply because a minuscule
portion of that money came from your tax dollars. It’s a good rule because
otherwise we’d have total chaos. However there is one exception on the
books at the moment and that’s related to congressional spending in
violation of the Establishment Clause.
In Flast v. Cohen (1968) the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer had
standing to challenge congressional assistance to religious schools and in
Bowen v. Kendrick (1988) the court held that a taxpayer had standing to
challenge grants to religious institutions.
The question here is whether simply being a taxpayer is enough to confer
the legal standing to challenge aspects of Bush the Unhinged’s Faith Based
Initiatives program.
This is a non-trivial question and 11 states, led by Indiana but including
states such as Michigan and Washington, have filed Amicus Briefs supporting
the government (Hein) concerned that widening the exception to the
executive branch could open the floodgates for a host of lawsuits. The
state’s Amicus Brief actually calls for the overruling of Flast as a
doctrinal aberration.
Beyond the Amicus Brief by the states you have the usual Christian Oriented
suspects supporting the government and the usual Liberal suspects
supporting the FfRF with Amicus Briefs. The Thomas More Center, ACLJ and
Christian Legal Society support the government while the ACLU, The Center
for Secular Humanism and The American Atheists support the FfRF.
I had to raise an eyebrow at the ACLJ saying that’s its time to stop
extending special privileges to taxpayers trying to maintain the separation
of church and state! Or, as the ACLJ puts it, stop extending special
privileges to those “separatists.” Err, isn’t the separation of church and
state a fundamental American principal that we should all be fighting to
maintain? Aren’t all good Americans supposed to be separatists? That
whirring sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spinning in
their graves.
On the serious side, the Anti-defamation League, the Joint Baptist Congress
and the American Jewish Congress all support the FfRF.
I guess the question becomes is the executive branch obligated to abide by
the Establishment Clause? To my mind, since the executive branch is
dependent upon funds appropriated by Congress and the Establishment Clause
restricts Congress with respect to religion, then the executive branch is
clearly obligated to respect the 1st Amendment. Although I’m pretty there
are people in this country that would debate this one or at least argue
that Christianity is an exception.
[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
****************************************************************
.
|
