Subject: [AthofSV] A NY Times editorial on today's Supreme Court faith based initiatives challenge

From: "bjdpc" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:15:42 -0000

February 28, 2007

Editorial

Government by Law, Not Faith

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could have a 
broad impact on whether the courthouse door remains open to ordinary 
Americans who believe that the government is undermining the 
separation of church and state.

The question before the court is whether a group seeking to preserve 
the separation of church and state can mount a First Amendment 
challenge to the Bush administration's "faith based" initiatives. 
The arguments turn on a technical question of whether taxpayers have 
standing, or the right to initiate this kind of suit, but the real-
world implications are serious. If the court rules that the group 
does not have standing, it will be much harder to stop government 
from giving unconstitutional aid to religion.

Soon after taking office, President Bush established the White House 
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and faith-based 
offices in departments like Justice and Education. They were 
intended to increase the federal grant money going to religious 
organizations, and they seem to have been highly effective. The 
plaintiffs cited figures showing that from 2003 to 2005, the number 
of federal grants to religious groups increased 38 percent. The 
Freedom From Religion Foundation and several of its members sued. 
They say that because the faith-based initiatives favor religious 
applicants for grants over secular applicants, they violate the 
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits 
government support for religion. 

These are profound issues, but because the administration challenged 
the right of the foundation and its members to sue, the courts must 
decide whether the plaintiffs have the right to sue in this case 
before they can consider the constitutionality of the faith-based 
programs. An appeals court has ruled, correctly, that the plaintiffs 
have standing.

In many cases, taxpayers are not in fact allowed to sue to challenge 
government actions, but the Supreme Court has long held that they 
have standing to allege violations of the Establishment Clause. 
Without this sort of broad standing, many entanglements between 
church and state would never make it to court.

The Bush administration is pushing an incorrect view of standing as 
it tries to stop the courts from reaching the First Amendment issue. 
Taxpayers can challenge the financing of religious activity, the 
administration claims, only when a Congressional statute expressly 
authorizes the spending. There is no statute behind the faith-based 
initiative.

In his decision for the appeals court, Judge Richard Posner of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, 
convincingly explained why this argument is inconsistent with the 
Supreme Court's precedents on the Establishment Clause.

Procedural issues like standing can have an enormous impact on the 
administration of justice if they close the courthouse door on 
people with valid legal claims. The Supreme Court has made it clear 
that taxpayers may challenge government assistance to religion. The 
justices should affirm Judge Posner's ruling so the courts can move 
on to the important question: Do the Bush administration's faith-
based policies violate the Constitution?

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company