Author Topic: Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?  (Read 4068 times)

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« on: April 09, 2005, 04:03:05 PM »
For those who missed it, there is a thread on THR with this topic question. It was (rightly) closed as OT over there, but it's an interesting question.

My understanding is, these are federal grants to religious charities, but I don't know much beyond that.

Are they Constitutional? I think not. The other thread was really asking more about 1st amendment objections, but my objection would center on Article 1, Section 8. Where is the authority for Congress to spend any money on charities?

Considering that we've had cases about whether growing your own wheat is interstate commerce, whether rape is interstate commerce, whether walking near a school with a gun is interstate commerce, whether robbing liquor stores is interstate commerce, if you rob enough of them, and, currently, whether a homegrown cannabis plant for personal consumption, or a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption is interstate commerce, I have a feeling the answer is something like: poor people can't engage in much interstate commerce, so Congress has the authority to spend money this way.

I don't buy it. Do you?

(Edited to add a bunch of links and more examples of interstate commerce.

lee n. field

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,600
  • tinpot megalomaniac, Paulbot, hardware goon
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2005, 05:00:06 PM »
A clear indication there's too much government.
In thy presence is fulness of joy.
At thy right hand pleasures for evermore.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2005, 05:21:48 PM »
If you missed the thread over at THR, here it is:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=133792

TarpleyG

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,001
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2005, 09:21:33 PM »
While I agree with Lee and while I do not think the govt has any business meddling in religious doings, I hardly think it is 'unconstitutional.'  People always refer to 'separation of church and state' as if it were in the Constitution and it simply isn't.  I believe it was referred to in a later document / discussion by one of the FF, but not referred to in the Consitution itself.

Greg

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2005, 02:16:41 AM »
Where is the authority for Congress to spend money this way?

Quote
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
If you think you found it in the words "provide for... the general welfare," maybe this article will help out.

Quote
ames Madison is the Constitution's acknowledged "father," and here's what he had to say: "With respect to the two words general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Are we back again (still?) to Wickard v Filburn?

possenti

  • New Member
  • Posts: 43
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2005, 09:59:36 AM »
Unconstitutional.  While I think the "no religious displays on public property ban" is not, I don't support grants to religious groups.  Tax breaks, yes.  Taxpayer money, no.

Most conservatives of my stripe support the Faith-based initiatives, but I think it could open up a whole new can of worms.  "Churches" of every kooky, leftist flavor would begin popping up everywhere, demanding their place to suck at the government teat.  Even if the Bush administration kept the whackos in check, what would a future administration (Hillary) do?

The best way to judge a law is to ask yourself how badly it could be abused by the most evil people.

Why don't they just cut spending, cut taxes, and let people decide which religious organizations they want to donate to?  Because we're stupid, and the government should make those decisions for us. rolleyes

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2005, 10:42:54 AM »
Quote
The best way to judge a law is to ask yourself how badly it could be abused by the most evil people.
That's a good way to judge whether a law is a good idea or not, but that question comes after the topic question, which is whether it is Constitutional or not. If it is not, whether or not it is a good idea should be considered in the context of amending the Constitution.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2005, 01:30:13 PM »
Quote from: possenti
Most conservatives of my stripe support the Faith-based initiatives, but I think it could open up a whole new can of worms.  "Churches" of every kooky, leftist flavor would begin popping up everywhere, demanding their place to suck at the government teat.  Even if the Bush administration kept the whackos in check, what would a future administration (Hillary) do?
I'm a pagan.  Hardly a "kooky, leftish flavor" religion.  All religions are equal under the law.  Doesn't matter if it's thousands of years old with millions of members, or two weeks old with twenty members.   I have no problems with posting the Ten Commandments on public property, if any other religious creed is allowed to do the same.  If my tax money is given to one religion and no others...  that is crossing the line in the sand.  Government has no business mucking around with religion.  Certainly not playing favorites with tax dollars.

By the way, Bill of Rights only lists a FEW rights we possess.  The BoR does not grant us these rights.  We are born with them.  The BoR only recognizes a few of these natural rights, and specifically says so.

Quote
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
My right to be free of government-enforced religious coercion is specifically meantioned, specifically in the First Amendment.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2005, 03:23:49 AM »
Quote
If my tax money is given to one religion and no others...  that is crossing the line in the sand.
If my tax money is given to any or all religions (or anyone else) as charity without any Constitutional authority, that crosses my line.

RealGun

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2005, 06:04:54 AM »
"If my tax money is given to any or all religions (or anyone else) as charity without any Constitutional authority, that crosses my line."

I would include "tax breaks" beyond treatment as a non-profit organization. A tax break per se is an expression of a government interest and indirectly funds the organization.

Sean Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 257
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2005, 06:21:08 AM »
The only way to make this truly pass 1st Ammendment muster IMO would be if there was a blind selection process so the religion/non-religion of the charity was not a factor in who got the cash.  The selection committee (or whatever) just gets packets documenting the performance of the charity without reference to its name or religion/non-religion, and chooses based on those.  Of course, that ignores the question of if the whole idea of the government giving cash to charities is stupid or not.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2005, 06:41:24 AM »
I don't know, Sean. Making sure that the govt doesn't know too much about the people to whom they're giving money? Sounds both silly and complicated to me.

If implemented and achieved, it might pass even a pretty strict 1st amendment test, but it would be bound to produce some pretty outrageous results.

Sean Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 257
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2005, 06:47:23 AM »
Quote from: publius
I don't know, Sean. Making sure that the govt doesn't know too much about the people to whom they're giving money? Sounds both silly and complicated to me.

If implemented and achieved, it might pass even a pretty strict 1st amendment test, but it would be bound to produce some pretty outrageous results.
Well, I think the whole premise of the government giving cash to charities is stupid, to be honest.  It is just going to be a way for the .gov to give cash to people they arbitrarily like.  The fact that it is unworkable to implement a system for this thing that doesn't take a dump on the 1st Ammendment may just be more proof that the whole idea is moronic.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2005, 03:06:58 PM »
Quote
I would include "tax breaks" beyond treatment as a non-profit organization. A tax break per se is an expression of a government interest and indirectly funds the organization.
RealGun,

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. The Congress does have the power to lay and collect taxes. I know there are arguments about the ratification of the 16th amendment and the scope of any income tax, but leaving those aside, they can tax income. Income is the difference between revenue and legitimate business expenses. "Tax breaks" as you are talking about them are allowances for such deductions which benefit a specific business, allowing them to claim something they previously could not as an expense, for example.

It may be influence peddling, and it may be wrong, but it is inherent in the power to tax to be able to make such rules, and I don't think making them can be unconstitutional.

buzz_knox

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2005, 11:36:15 AM »
Without getting into the impropriety of using the commerce clause for these purposes, one of the argument for the initiatives is that the government has refused to fund them because of their religious affiliation.  This is illegal, as refusing to allow generally available funds to go to an organization due to religion is the same as funding that organization because of the religion.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2005, 03:49:22 PM »
Quote
refusing to allow generally available funds to go to an organization due to religion is the same as funding that organization because of the religion.
But if these are "Faith Based Initiatives" that implies that the money will go to religious charities only, and not to non-religious ones.

(Trying very hard here to ignore that whole commerce clause thing...) Wink

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,454
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2005, 04:41:13 PM »
Well, I guess I'm just a naive dreamer, but I think the Federal Gov't ought to collect enough taxes to fund the security of our borders, keep an updated and well regulated military as constrained by the Constitution, and be an overseer/ombudsman on behalf of the general citizenry regarding national transportation, communication, and energy.
I'm hard pressed to admit that we need any more governance than that.  The rest of what we need to maintain our way of life can certainly devolve and be handled more efficaciously at the local level, say by the counties.  State government ought to be a microcosm of the Federal and stay mostly the hell out of our business, especially education.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Phantom Warrior

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 926
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2005, 05:20:36 PM »
grampster,

Chalk me up as a naive dreamer too, then.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2005, 02:53:59 AM »
Quote
be an overseer/ombudsman on behalf of the general citizenry regarding national transportation, communication, and energy.
I'm hard pressed to admit that we need any more governance than that.  The rest of what we need to maintain our way of life can certainly devolve and be handled more efficaciously at the local level, say by the counties.
There are environmental issues which are national as well. Fisheries, rivers, etc, cross state lines.

 I liked my county's plan for protecting the precious (and, I'm told, delicious) manatees better than I liked the state/federal plan which was jammed down our throats by big city watermelons with no local knowledge but a boatload of junk science.

Still, if you're in Disney's county and you don't like what the county government is doing, but Disney does, good luck with that.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,489
  • I Am Inimical
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2005, 08:24:38 AM »
Beats me, but if it pisses off the Democrats, I'm generally fine with it.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

RealGun

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2005, 12:13:14 PM »
There better be a separate accounting entity for charitable work and other public services, or government money will just leak over into the sponsoring congregations or religious organizations and result in more elaborate worship and school facilities, higher production value services, higher paid and additional clergy, retired mortgages, graft, etc. These federally funded operations need to be truly not-for-profit. Otherwise, allowed or disallowed tax deductions should indeed be a factor. Deductions (and taxes) would apply only to the separate, public service entity, when profitable.

I am not so sure a church should be tax free just because it's a church. Some accounting for charitable spending would make it more than a privileged group with a tax shelter for an extravagant worship facility or even private schools. The money isn't taxed at all, if individuals can take deductions for church contributions, and the church itself is tax exempt. We have that arrangement only because it is or was a popular idea, once considered a normal, everyman expense. I am not attacking the concept of churches or religion. I just wonder if their tax treatment is an inappropriate privilege.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2005, 02:06:41 PM »
Whoa! Better not wonder that too loudly, RG! Wink

XLMiguel

  • Guest
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2005, 04:20:36 PM »
I don't trust churches or organized religion in general.  They have a built in conflict of interest in that they all think they serve a 'higher authority' (whatever that is on any given day) and have no particulalr accountability to the public at large, so I definitely don't want them handling public funds.  It's just too easy for somebody's vision of  "god's will' to get confused with and subvert legitimate secular public charity and social services.

I saw an interesting bumper stick last week that said, "I'll keep my government out of your church if you keep your church out of my government".  Seems fair enough to me, TJ had it right.

publius

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives - Constitutional?
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2005, 01:07:49 AM »
The bumper sticker wisdom ignores important realities. You can't keep govt out of churches completely. If they're regulated like other public establishments, both for profit and non-profit, govt is going to be all over their facilities, going over their books, etc. If they're exempt from regulation and taxation, that's special govt treatment in itself, and then govt must be in the business of deciding which churches are, and are not, legit.

Also, you can't keep a religious person's religion from determining what he believes is right and what is wrong. Determinations of what is right and wrong are necessary in order to make and enforce the government's laws.