This could spell the end of Bush handing out our money to the Churches of his choice as he feels like it. Bushs so-called evangelic bent has been behind the passing out of Millions of our tax dollars to help fund their " charity work ". Yesterday a Federal Appeals Panel ruled that type of behavior is Unconstitutional at least in Iowa.
A federal appeals panel ruled yesterday that a state-financed evangelical Christian program to help prisoners re-enter civilian life fostered religious indoctrination and violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, was the latest in a series of rulings over the last year to reinforce laws that bar government money from promoting religion, said Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University who is an expert on religion-based initiatives.
Court Bars State Effort Using Faith in Prisons
Can I get a Amen ? Ever since Bush started this type of program Americans have been trying to stop this abuse on our "quaint piece of paper". Sadly this is only one of hundreds of violations of his oath of office for Bush.
This one should of been slapped down when it first began. I find it hard to believe that as out in the open this was being done while being billed as the " Compassionate Conservative." Church leaders praised this trashing while claiming to be good Americans. Republican and some Democrats climbed on this Unconstitutional bandwagon yet it has gone on for years.
Added to this story is a twist usually reserved for novels. I think we can all agree what Bush has done in the last 7 yrs surpassed Watergate in scope and audacity years ago, yet mixed up in the middle of this case is none other than convicted Watergate criminal Charles W. Colson. You remember him, the guy who found Jesus in Prison and has parlayed in into the "Prison Fellowship Ministries". It took this case over 4 yrs to work it's way through the court process, something I hope we Dems can fix with both Houses and the White House.
Because Bush has refused to put forward any Democratic or Independant Judges as nominees Democrats have been force to sit on the Bushs Nominees just to keep our courts from being lopsided with Bushies, Koolaid drinkers, Neocons, and those from the Federalist Soc..
I have no clue how many cases are winding themselves through the system but I did find out that in these type of cases we Citizens can actually sue to stop these funding because of a 1968 Supreme Court ruling. ( I have fond memorys of the 69s SCOTUS ) I'm just a layperson but this quote seems to fit this case perfect, if not I'm sure one of our legal eagles will help us out with a explanation.
The Supreme Court said in a 1968 case that taxpayers can sue to challenge public programs that spend money for religious purposes. That ruling marked an exception to the general rule that Americans can't go to court to contest how their tax dollars are spent because they don't have enough of a personal stake in the outcome.
In its appeal, the Bush administration said the 1968 case and later decisions created ``a narrow exception, designed to prevent the specific historic evil of direct legislative subsidization of religious entities.''
The government says the taxpayers, to sue, must point to either a specific congressional appropriation or a transfer of funds to a religious group. The White House program was established through a series of executive orders and wasn't specifically authorized by Congress. Attack on Bush's Faith-Based Initiative Draws Top Court Review
Dalia, over at Slate wrote about this last case back in June of 06. She pointed out Scalia's disconnectedness with why people like me feel the way I do. What she wrote really struck a chord with me, but she does that quite often. I hope you will feel the same , or at least grasp what I feel is like a Key to why we Americans are baffles things got this far.
We may differ as to whether religion is different, but we could probably at least agree as to why some might think it so. The answer is right here in Justice Souter's dissent. And it was amplified by Justice Breyer's concerns at oral argument. Forced religion makes Americans nuts. It always has. Nuts. Going back to James Madison's concern about forcing citizens to "contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment" of religion, some of the framers could be uniquely—and perhaps even pathologically—sensitive to extracting funds from citizens for the support of religions to which their consciences objected. Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Hein, dismisses this as some kind of free-floating "psychic injury" (as distinguished from what he terms "wallet injury"). I have to tell you that this dismissal is quite amazing. Justice Scalia thinks that someone's heartfelt religious objection to subsidizing a religion that he or she finds alienating is merely a fleeting bout of "mental displeasure"? Are the visceral and vociferous religious convictions of Americans really so trivial? Or is it just "mental displeasure" when it happens to atheists, who don't like religion at all? Not Even Three-Pence: Religion Is Different
I'm curious how the new Atty. Gen., Mukayse will handle this mess. It almost feels useless to continue to have to fight battles like these that should never of been allowed to get off the ground, let alone allowing it to pass out millions if not billions of dollars.