You're not hearing me: you are talking about an election. I am talking about
laws. You cannot challenge a
law based on what is inside the head of the guy who passed it, only based on the merits of the law itself. (and no, "intent of the law" and "motivation of the guy who wrote it" are not the same thing)
For an election, what's going on inside the politician's head is, of course, the main thing you have by which to decide who to vote for. You judge them based on how you think they will act(and how they arrive at their decisions) while in office. Could you be more specific - I'm not sure what you are talking about. Just like SA, you're not hearing me. The merrits of a law are of course the entire point - but what you said earlier is that the law can be challenged
based on the motivation of the writer. Not the merrits of the law, but rather what's in the head of the guy who wrote it. I have asked for examples and received only insinuation. You force me to interpret the insinuation. It has been insinuated that Bush is violating the establishment clause.
Tell me how. No, I wouldn't make that claim every time. But hey - its not my claim:
you (et al) are the one claiming that there are violations of the establishment clause going on. Fortunately, the proof for you is simpler: you need only provide
one example. SOS gave the example of the Schaivo case - clearly, establishment is not at issue there (the courts have been quite specific). Do you have any examples - heck, at this point, I'll accept even an hypothetical - where establishment is an issue? Well, that depends - on what criteria would the USSC decide to take a case? Seems to me, they'd decide based on what are the most sticky constitutionally. And remember - its not as if anyone can bring a case to the USSC at any time - they have to go through lower courts first.
russ_watters said:
But hey, I'm not particular: give me an example of a current law (preferrably one passed under Bus), whether examined by the USSC or not, that is unconsitutional based on the establishment clause. Of course, if the USSC hasn't reviewed it, you'll need to provide your own argument...
Again I think you are entirely missing what I am trying to bring across. When the whole basis for legislation or policy, etc is a religious one, there is a danger that it might define people by religious reference or further religious indoctrination, etc. This was what I had said before: "To use your religious morals as the basis of a law, there's a good argument that there was no secular purpose in creating the law. Further the law may no longer be neutral. Also, to insert their morals in that way, it may be that they are affiliating themselves with a particular religious doctrine..."
Yes it can be challenge, but like I said, it may be found that there was no secular purpose in creating the law, etc. So I didn't in fact merely say that we can challenge the "motivations of the writer." It means that we have to see the results of the law itself because we can't really look into the mind of the person until we see the results of his work. We can only declare unconstitutional his acts, and from that if the law seems to be only religiously motivated the effect of the law may no only be neutral. There is a danger that it might favor one religion over another or exclude certain people. The Supreme Court in the case below held: "When a governmental entity professes a secular purpose for an arguably religious policy, the government's characterization is, of course, entitled to some deference. But it is nonetheless the duty of the courts to distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one." They look at the purpose behind the creation of any policy or legislation. So they look into the text and history of it. So when a legislator create laws which are based entirely on religious morality, the purpose or effect of the policy may no longer be secular, i.e. it's purpose or effect might endorse religion.
In fact in
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE (2000) the court declared that because student led prayer prior to school football games was public speech, authorized by a government policy, taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events and petitioner school district's policy allowing such public speech violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Another cases that involve violations of the establishment clause is
Warnock v. Archer (2004).
Also the USSC has granted certiorari to review the following question as of 2003:
Questions: 1. Whether respondent has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Also, the Courts are not limited to the use of the Lemon test (
Lee v. Weisman).
"
The Court has invalidated legislation or governmental action on the ground that a secular purpose was lacking, but only when it has concluded there was no question that the statute or activity was motivated wholly by religious considerations. See, e. g., Stone v. Graham, supra, at 41; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107-109 (1968); Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 223-224; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424-425 (1962). Even where [**1363] the benefits to religion were substantial, as in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968); Walz, supra; and Tilton, supra, we saw a secular purpose and no conflict with the Establishment Clause. Cf. Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982)." (
Lynch v. Donnelly )
All of the above cases are Supreme Court cases and valid law.