Released on = April 18, 2007, 3:02 pm

Press Release Author = PublicSquare.net

Industry = Law

Press Release Summary = This week, two legal scholars debate Hein v. Freedom from
Religion Foundation, a case currently before the Supreme Court involving President
Bush's faith-based initiative and the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Press Release Body = his week, two legal scholars debate Hein v. Freedom from
Religion Foundation, a case currently before the Supreme Court involving President
Bush's faith-based initiative and the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Greg Jones, an attorney at the Foundation for Moral Law, argues in "Ending
Establishment Clause Purgatory" that the Court's ruling in Flast v. Cohen (1968)
unnecessarily muddied the waters, and it has haunted First Amendment jurisprudence
ever since. "The Supreme Court could clear up most of the confusion in these cases
by simply applying the literal meaning of the establishment clause, rather than the
judicial interpretations, to these cases.. A literal interpretation of the
establishment clause would radically and positively change the way such disputes are
handled in our society by actually keeping them out of the court system altogether."

But law professor Steven K. Green of Willamette University disagrees. In "The Immune
Presidency?" Green takes issue with Jones's reasoning: "The problem with this
argument is that it grossly overstates the federalism aspect to the establishment
clause. That the members of the first Congress viewed the Bill of Rights as
restricting federal power vis-à-vis the states is not profound; to claim that the
framers intended the establishment clause to protect the ability of states to
maintain religious establishments is a perversion of history."

Jones then responds in "The Hein Case: A Rejoinder to Steven Green": "Green may not
like many of President Bush's policies. He may not like the idea of funding
faith-based social programs with taxpayer dollars. He may not like spinach. However,
simply disliking something does not confer a right to waltz into a courtroom to
challenge these things as unconstitutional."

What do you think? Where do you come down? Be sure to visit PublicSquare.net, take
the poll at the end of the debate, and join the discussion yourself!


Web Site = http://www.publicsquare.net

Contact Details = PublicSquare.net
P.O. Box 191373
San Diego, CA 92159

Phone:
(888) 753-1141

Fax:
(888) 753-1141

E-mail:
info@publicsquare.net