Ok, I looked around a bit & didn't see a thread about this. Mods, if there is already a similar thread, would you be kind enough to merge my comments? I'd thank thee!

Anyway, lost in the shuffle of SCOTUS decisions yesterday was Hein v. FFRF. Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation ruling. It denies taxpayers the ability to challenge the constitutionality of the President's use of federal funds to aid religion, when those funds are not designated by Congress for that purpose.
The FFRF filed the lawsuit over the use of government funds to promote Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals ruled that taxpayers have standing to challenge a program created by a Presidential executive order, alleged to promote religion, and which is financed by a congressional appropriation. The Supreme Court reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling saying that "Those expenditures resulted from executive discretion, not congressional action. We have never found taxpayer standing under such circumstances." Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

So, I just want to take some time to look at the history of church/state separation and show how incredibly flawed is this decision. In 1968, the SCOTUS decisded inFlast v. Cohen that the government cannot use its taxing power to force citizens to provide financial support for religion. In 1989, the Court decided in Bowen v. Kendrick. The '89 case is nearly identical to the '07 case, yet the Court has now virtually reversed itself.

In Flast, the SCOTUS determined that taxpayers have standing to bring suit under the Establishment Clause (Article III). The Executive Branch used Congressionally appropriated funds to finance religious schools. The '68 Court wrote that:

"Our history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by those who drafted the Establishment Clause and fought for its adoption was that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general."

James Madison wrote in Memorial and Reomonstrance Against Religious Assessments that "the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever." As the architect of the Constitution, Madison's words should not be taken likely. The '07 Court, however, has all but ignored the wise words of this Founding Father.

Since Flast was decided nearly 40 years ago, the Court has recognized taxpayer standing challenging governmental expenditures that appear to violate the Establishment Clause. No more, after yesterday, do taxpayers have the right to bring suit when they feel their tax-dollars are being misspent on religious causes. Much like Plessy, the Court really had its collective head up its ass in this ruling.

Our Founding Fathers surely did not intend to install Henry VIII in the White House. But the past Congress, acting in collusion with the office of the President, issued an appropriations bill with over $53.8 million in pork for W. to spread amongst his far-right Fundamentalist constituency. How does this square with other Founders? Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1808 that "civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." In 1779, Jefferson warned about "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world." He went on to say that, "the government of the United States [is] interdicted by the [Virginia] Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government."

In 1811, Madison vetoed "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia." He did not sign the bill because it exceeded "the rightful authority to which Governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and that, more specifically, it violated the Establishment Clause.

And for those who would make the argument in favor of a unitary executive and who would have a vision of the office of the President as the most powerful office in the land, heed these words of Madison (again, the architect of the Constitution):

"In our government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the Executive Department than any other, because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker." Were Madison alive today, I'm sure this administration would cause him uncontrollable intestinal heaves.

And for those weak-kneed politicos currently controlling the Congress, perhaps they should re-read Madison's words regarding the "Power of the Purse." Madison described this power as "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." He viewed this power as "the great bulwark which our Constitution had carefully and jealously established against Executive usurpation."

The only possible conclusion is that the Framers intended to reach all expenditures of taxpayer funds that violate the Clause's prohibition. In other words, the real travesty of justice at the SCOTUS yesterday was not the "Bong Hits For Jesus" decision (bad as that was), but this incredible miscarriage essentially overturning over 200 years of Court history of upholding taxpayer standing to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause.

Yet one more reason to hold W.'s presidency and his god-awful SCOTUS appointments in contempt.

My friends, we shall pay dearly for these horrid mistakes for decades to come, in all likelihood.

See Is "Hein" a blow to Church-State separation? - Haaretz - Israel News for more info regarding yesterday's decision.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I think all the terrible decisions yesterday were by a 5 to 4 vote, right down party lines.

I disagree with all of them.

If only we had a modern day Thomas Jefferson around...

We need a president who's an atheist to prevent this kind of crap. Unfortunately, most of the right wouldn't vote for such a person because of their beliefs. Hell, they won't even vote for Romney (though that's a good thing.)

__________________

Maybe I should run for office. I always put things through my "Madison & Jefferson" filters before deciding the intended direction of our nation.

Of course, I, like Jefferson & Madison, am a Deist. So, I likely wouldn't pass the religious test (even though the Constitution strictly forbids such tests in Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States). I simply cannot believe, in this day & age, that some people remain so superstitous as to need someone's religious background before making an "informed" decision about the suitability of that person for office.

I mean, look at W. A supposed Christian who acts as if he's trying to fill the role of Anti-Christ as delineated in Revelations.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Actually, I would just say Americans need to stop electing religious extremists like George W. Bush. What next? Osama bin Laden for President? Hmmm...might be better than Bush.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.