A few articles of interest I found for your weekend perusal:
The recent news cycles have been dominated with stories about sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviors among elected officials, powerful individuals, and political candidates. Especially when it comes to politics the issue can present difficult choices to Christians. Marvin Olasky shares some valuable insight on the message our choices send to future generations.
These news stories have sparked a debate about the so-called Billy Graham rule. This discussion (on Twitter no less) is one of the most interesting and helpful discussions on the subject I have read.
One possible political solution to the problem of unqualified U. S. Senate candidates is a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Stephen Mansfield helpfully explains why many evangelicals decided to vote for Donald Trump as President.
Many conservatives who argued in favor of Trump's election used the Supreme Court as an argument for supporting him. David French warns of the dangers of obsessing over the Court.
Related: Senator Ben Sasse warned this week against the dangers of political idolatry.
Last week marked the premiere of the new film adaptation of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. Here's a list of nine other novels for those who are new to her work.
Finally, a 97 year-old World War II veteran shares about his service as a code breaker during the war. It's fascinating stuff.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Friday, November 24, 2017
Monday, June 25, 2007
Supreme Court Rules on Faith-Based Initiatives
The Supreme Court today ruled in the case of Hein vs. Freedom From Religion Foundation which challenged the constitutionality of President Bush's Office of Faith Based Initiatives. The Court dismissed the suit stating that the plantiffs in the case, Freedom From Religion Foundation, didn't have the proper standing to bring the suit.
The ruling is interesting because it doesn't necessarily address whether the President's faith-based initiatives are constitutional. Rather, the argument focused on a narrow issue in Establishment Clause litigation: under what circumstances can an individual or group bring suit against the federal government to halt funding of government program that seems to run afoul of the First Amendment.
Generally speaking, an individual taxpayer cannot bring suit against the government for any reason. However, there is a specific exception that was created by the Supreme Court in its 1968 ruling Flast vs. Cohen. That case requires that the program in question is the direct result of congressional funding.
The Court, in deciding the case, determined that because the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is funded by the Executive Branch than directly by Congress there was no cause of action under Faust.
While the result will be applauded by conservatives, the Court has again opted to punt on dealing with the more serious issue of whether the Faust exception is constitutional at all. In the end, while the Court may have settled this case they have left the door open for more of this type of litigation to come from separatist groups. One can only hope that the Court can find the way to provide clearer guidance on these and other difficult constitutional questions.
The ruling is interesting because it doesn't necessarily address whether the President's faith-based initiatives are constitutional. Rather, the argument focused on a narrow issue in Establishment Clause litigation: under what circumstances can an individual or group bring suit against the federal government to halt funding of government program that seems to run afoul of the First Amendment.
Generally speaking, an individual taxpayer cannot bring suit against the government for any reason. However, there is a specific exception that was created by the Supreme Court in its 1968 ruling Flast vs. Cohen. That case requires that the program in question is the direct result of congressional funding.
The Court, in deciding the case, determined that because the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is funded by the Executive Branch than directly by Congress there was no cause of action under Faust.
While the result will be applauded by conservatives, the Court has again opted to punt on dealing with the more serious issue of whether the Faust exception is constitutional at all. In the end, while the Court may have settled this case they have left the door open for more of this type of litigation to come from separatist groups. One can only hope that the Court can find the way to provide clearer guidance on these and other difficult constitutional questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)