The establishment clause prohibits congress from mandating a state adult singles dating edinburg mississippi
But now this cornerstone of American government is under siege, its foundation threatened by an agenda-driven Supreme Court.The Establishment Clause The phrase “separation of church and state” derives from a letter by President Jefferson in 1802 where he wrote: “Erecting the wall of separation between church and state…is absolutely essential in a free society.” The wellspring of American anti-establishment thinking, however, was Jefferson’s successor, James Madison—the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights.In the Arizona Christian case, the majority again made a “meaningless distinction.” The Arizona private school tuition tax credit in question had cost the state, by its own estimate, about 0 million in diverted tax revenues.Again, the Court’s narrow conservative majority held that the complaining taxpayers lacked standing, but again, Flast was not explicitly overturned—because the Court found that a tax credit is not the same as a government appropriation.Winn case, the Court similarly denied Arizona taxpayers the right to challenge, under the Establishment Clause, tax credits for tuition payments to a parochial school. In both cases, the Flast precedent granting taxpayer standing to sue was marginalized and implicitly overturned.In its Hein decision, the Court didn’t expressly overturn Flast, but instead held that the precedent didn’t apply because the challenged expenditure was by the executive branch rather than Congress.
Government cannot declare any single religion to be the “true” religion; it cannot cede civil power to religious bodies; it cannot fund religious education directly or discriminate between religions in the distribution of funds.Some background: it is widely accepted that the Court made the Clause applicable to the individual states—via a process called “incorporation”—in the 1947 case Everson v. (This is not a fringe theory; since the late nineteenth century, virtually all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated via a series of Supreme Court decisions.) But don’t count on Thomas as a believer.When it comes to incorporation of the Establishment Clause, he is a Doubting Thomas.On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit on purely procedural grounds.Michael Newdow, a California attorney and emergency medicine physician, had brought the suit on his daughter’s behalf.