Experts: More danger than meets eye in upcoming Supreme Court case
By Robert Marus
http://www.abpnews.com/1770.article
[excerpt]

Published February 22, 2007

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- There's more at risk for the separation of church
and state than meets the eye in an upcoming Supreme Court case, a
panel of legal experts agreed Feb. 21.

The experts previewed oral arguments in Hein v. Freedom From Religion
Foundation, slated for Feb. 28.

The American Constitution Society sponsored the discussion between the
attorneys who represent groups with friend-of-the-court briefs on
opposite sides in the case. It was held at the National Press Club in
Washington.

"What this case is really about is the basic question [of] whether
citizens have the right to sue to keep the government from violating
the First Amendment," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director
for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

His organization, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,
People for the American Way and other groups supportive of
church-state separation have filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief
in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's position.

The case will mark the first time the justices deal with President
Bush's faith-based initiatives -- his attempt to expand the
government's ability to fund social services through churches and
other religious charities.

However, Hein does not deal directly with whether the program violates
the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion, as
some of its critics contend. Rather, the court will consider a
narrower issue -- whether a group of taxpayers has "standing," or the
right to sue, over the use of general executive-branch funds to
promote the faith-based plan.

According to Judith Schaeffer, attorney for People For the American
Way, if a majority of the court rules broadly against the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, it will effectively "close the courthouse doors"
to Americans trying to prevent the government from violating the First
Amendment.

In the case, President Bush's administration appealed a 2005 ruling
from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision said a group
of taxpayers, represented by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion
Foundation, could challenge the White House's practice of spending
money on a series of conferences to promote the faith-based initiative.

The taxpayers said they had standing to challenge the practice because
government money was being used to promote religion, even though
Congress did not specifically appropriate the money for any religious
groups.

Attorneys for the government responded that giving taxpayers the right
to sue over the conferences would dramatically expand the rules for
such lawsuits dealing with the First Amendment's religion clauses.

The Supreme Court has long held that taxpayers do not generally have
standing to sue the government over the way it disburses funds because
the connection between an individual taxpayer's contributions and the
expenditure is too remote. For individuals to sue the government over
a constitutional violation, they must prove a specific injury they
sustained because of that governmental act.

In 1968, the court carved out an exception to the rule with regard to
the First Amendment. In Flast v. Cohen, justices reasoned that the
exception was reasonable because of the special history of the First
Amendment's establishment clause, which bars government support for
religion. Many of the framers of the Constitution argued forcefully
against European-style state support and financing of churches.

The underlying issue in the Hein case, the panelists said, is the
scope -- and even the legitimacy -- of the exception that the Flast
decision created.
[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

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.

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
****************************************************************