Undermining the Establishment Clause

[Ian David]

Undermining the Establishment Clause

By Erwin Chemerinsky

If the federal government gives money directly to a religious school or organization in a manner that clearly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, can anyone sue to stop it? The answer should be obvious; of course, any taxpayer should be able to sue to prevent his or her tax dollars from being used in a manner that is an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Unfortunately President Bush and the religious right disagree.

On Wednesday, February 28, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, a case that has the ability to make the federal government completely immune from challenges when it spends money to support religion.

In a 1968 court case, Flast v. Cohen, the Supreme Court decided that taxpayers have the right to sue in federal court to challenge federal spending alleged to violate the separation between church and state. This is an exception to the usual rule that a person cannot sue as a taxpayer to stop the spending of money that violates the Constitution. In Flast v. Cohen, the Court said that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was meant to be a limit on Congress’s taxing and spending power and that therefore taxpayers do have standing to enforce its commands.

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation is a challenge to the Bush administration’s unprecedented attempt to funnel money to religious entities providing social services. In his first days as President, George W. Bush created an Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives for the purpose of giving money to religious institutions. The question is whether a taxpayer can bring a challenge to this as violating the Establishment Clause.

More:
http://defconblog.org/2007/03/undermining-the-establishment-clause/

[mac2]

1. Here's money and power clergy!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/sorensen.romney.qa/index.html

Romney's no Kennedy regarding religion. Who wants to hear about someone's religion in public anyway?

When are they going to talk about giving back our Constitution and rights? Remove our debt and loss of power? Get our military bases out of the ME, etc. and back home at our borders? Build up our wiped out military and equipment? Lower the trade deficit? Chemicals on and in products and drugs from China (who is dumping their waste on us) removed?

Many say President Kennedy did allow the Cardinal in Boston to interfere in his foreign policy agenda. Apparently the Cardinal (a family friend) talked Kennedy into Vietnam to kick out the Communists (who hate religion since it leaves the country poor and over populated...the clergy also are corrupt and control the leaders). Look how well that turned out?

The problems with Cuba were also related to getting the Catholic church back in control. Castro kicked them out along with the Batista crooks.

There would be no Communism if the European religious groups (primarily Catholics) didn't want to control their country and destroy their culture. Now American RW Protestant evangelicals want into countries using our power and force (destroyed their temples and places of worship in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).

Romney would say anything to get elected...he swings from pro-life to choice depending on the area. He won on a pro-choice policy in PA. Now he's anti-abortion to get RW Evangelical support.

Any candidate for public office who brings their religion to the front of an election debate should not be elected (Lieberman and Romney fit that profile). It violates the Constitution since as President he is to represent all the people not just his God or group.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has tried to sue but their cases have been thrown mostly out of court. The Supremes have violated our Constitution more than once. First the stolen election (when states control elections and the rules) and then the trashing of the Constitution. Those who failed to protect it should be impeached. They like the representatives did swear an oath of office to protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic.

[mac2]

2. First days in office for Bush

and him creating the Office of Faith Based and Community inititatives were shocking. The Nuns and Priests sat up there with the President (in a big long table) like he declared them equal rule (state religion). He also gave them an office in the WH (not even the Senators have that) which was outrageous and spiteful. It's almost like I could hear him saying, "Here America I do as I please with any religious group I please. I'm King or should I say...Emperor".

Anyone else notice that? The media ignored it.