Thursday, March 01, 2007


The February 28th edition of the Christian Science Monitor contains an article worth examining. It indicates that oral arguments were to be brought before the Supreme Court that day relating to the separation of church and state which has long been part of the foundation of the US government. At question is whether private citizens can bring action to protest financial support of "faith-based initiatives" being funded by the executive branch.

The current administration will be claiming that taxpayers can protest expenditure authorizations made by Congress, but can not legally contest expenditure authorizations made by the executive branch. They feel they can spend the dollars for anything they want, including "faith-based initiatives".

A lower court suggested that under the administration's view "the secretary of Homeland Security could use general executive funds to build a mosque and hire an imam in the belief that such visible support for Islam would reduce the rise of Islamist terrorist attacks against America." The taxpayers are saying that "the core purpose of the establishment clause is to ensure that no taxpayer is forced to contribute to government support of religion." Although this case is being brought to the court on the religion issue, the big picture is whether or not the executive branch of our government has a complete blank check-book to spend money on anything they want with no oversight or legal recourse by anybody!

It's a case that probably only a lawyer can truly appreciate, but I'd suggest you still read the article written by a member of the Stanford Law School at

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home