HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - July 3, 2007 - Printable Version
- PRESIDENT BUSH 5, CONSTITUTION 4
by S. K. Eleton
Monday, June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court managed to churn out another of those famous 5-4 decisions. As we know, sometimes when that happens, we cheer the noble, brave number 5, but more often, we curse the ignoble, misguided, and deluded number 5. This time, it is once again the latter. In the case of Hein vs. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Supreme Court issued the decision that the United States taxpayer has no standing to challenge taxpayer dollars spent for support of religion, as long as it is the President and not Congress doing the spending. We the People can sue to uphold our Constitutional rights in a court of law as long as Congress clearly appropriated money with the intent of spending it on activities that support religion or particular religious groups; we are not able to challenge that expenditure if Congress did not intend the money to be used that way, but the President spent it that way. In short, we have now achieved the end that President Bush has desired all along – the President has just been placed above the law. There is now another law that stands supreme over the Constitution – the Law of the Presidential Whim. In order to understand the magnitude of just what the court has done, it is necessary to get a glimpse into the arguments of the case itself. This case was filed by a watchdog foundation that keeps close tabs on attempted pairing of religion and politics. Friend of the court briefs were filed by numerous groups across the spectrum, from mainstream religious groups to non-religious groups, with superbly argued legalese and numerous precedents. The only argument the court was hearing in this case was whether or not the ordinary taxpayer had a right to determine whether his or her taxes would go to support religious institutions. Many of the arguments in the case discussed the possible breadth to which the executive branch could go if there were no standing to sue. It was agreed by parties that, in the event the taxpayer did not have standing to sue, this could eventually lead to the situation where the Chief Executive could literally use taxpayer dollars to establish a particular church, synagogue, or mosque in which prayer was to be held, and maintain it with taxpayer dollars, hiring only those individuals who had the “proper” religious credentials to suit their own belief structure. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy (as usual, the wild card) stated that allowing such challenges could lead to a “real danger of judicial oversight of executive decisions”! Any oversight at all on executive decisions would be, for many of us, a refreshing change. Can anyone say “King George”?
Justice Souter, in a stinging dissent, reminded those of his colleagues on the Supreme Court who were weak in history that the roots of religious liberty go deep in American soil. He cited the words of James Madison, who in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, stated that the government in a free society may not “force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for any one establishment” of religion. In an earlier decision, Flast v. Cohen (1968), the Court had held that the taxpayer did have standing to challenge Congressional appropriations for the purposes of religion; fortunately, the Court in this decision did not overturn that earlier decision. It appears that, at this time, only Justices Scalia and Thomas are willing to take that definitive step. Justice Kennedy indicated that he is, in fact, not willing to take that step, and so we can still exercise our right to challenge having our taxpayer dollars appropriated for religion. We now know, however, that we have no right to challenge having our taxpayer dollars actually SPENT for religion. Such as decision can only be seen as taking this country further down the rabbit hole with Alice.
Most people in this country will probably wake up tomorrow morning feeling not one bit worse about this decision. On the whole, they assume it will not in any way affect their life that much. In reality, it probably won’t – not today. The real changes will come tomorrow, and next week, and next year. Slowly, quietly, under the radar, the real changes will come. As religious posturing takes the place of ideas and policies in formulating our government, the erosion of our rights will become so commonplace we won’t remember any longer that we once had the right to believe or not believe, worship or not worship, in our own way, according to the demands of our conscience. Like the proverbial frog being slowly boiled, the rights will decay one at a time, until one day you wake up and find that the President has given money from your tax appropriation to a church you despise, a church with a dogma diametrically opposed to your own. At that point, most people will start looking back, saying “what happened to the First Amendment”? When that happens, let them look no further than Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007).
As bad as it all may seem at times, you can take action. Write your Senators and your Representative, and call their office. Tell them how disappointed you are in the actions of the court, and request that they take action to end the White House Faith Based Initiative. They have the constitutional power to exercise oversight – tell them it is time they did just that. While you’re waiting for Congress to act, write to your local newspapers decrying the decision. Go online and sign the First Freedoms First Petition (http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/) sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Don’t sit passively by while the Supreme Court allows the President of the United States (elegantly known as POTUS) to make a mockery of your First Amendment rights.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).