Opinion

Secular loophole brings Arizona justice

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court to allow Arizona to continue a controversial school-choice program has many Americans outraged. Justice Elena Kagan, the second of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court appointments, has come out in opposition of the ruling charging that the “damages taxpayer standing in Establishment cases”, which was not the case under the Flast v. Cohen case. Flast v. Cohen was a case decided under the Warren Court which set precedent on matters involving the Establishment Clause.

Furthermore, Justice Kagan goes on to slam fellow benchmate Justice Anthony Kennedy and his opinion which allows the Arizona program to continue. Kagan asserts that “by ravaging Flast in this way, the majority ‘damages one of this nation’s defining constitutional amendments.’” That amendment is the First Amendment of the US Constitution which houses the Establishment Clause, a policy recognizing a deliberate separation between church and state by disallowing the state to make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The peculiar system in Arizona that’s stirring up dissent within the Court is its option to allow taxpayers to pay up to $500 of what they owe to the state to a non-profit of their choice. A disproportionate amount goes to schools and promoting in material and/or instruction some form of religion.

Justice Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion that the program’s financing comes from taxpayers; therefore those bringing the lawsuit can claim no harm from the state and lack standing to sue.

However, Justice Kagan is less than thrilled and relatively unimpressed with her associate calling his opinion a “novel distinction” that has “as little basis in principle as it has in our precedent.” The frustrated Justice Kagan goes on to clarify that “whether a state finances a program with cash grants or targeted tax breaks the effect is the same.” Arizona arguably is in violation and does too much to dissolve established precedent.

Justice Kagan makes a good point: whether a state finances a program with cash grants or through specifically targeted tax breaks and credits, it’s all disambiguous means to a very clear end. That end being the financing of religious schools for the promotion of specific morals and values in students but under a different name: tax credit.

It’s almost like the Obama Administration’s change of the political jargon after Bush to publically distanced themselves from the embattled former president, though the policies and practices are basically the same.

Nevertheless, one should applaud the Arizona lawmakers for finding a pretty lofty loophole and grounding a policy that is beneficial to their state around federal restrictions and limitations.

Justice Kagan is right, a pig by any other name is still a pig, and Arizona is prized with a 5-4 win in favor by the Court, a testament to its superior breeding.

The States know what their constituents need and want, as well as how best to serve those needs and wants specifically. Kagan and her appeals to derail what she perceives will become a national phenonmenon of states combing through law books to stake out their own positions in getting around the Establishment Clause is evidence that the clause should only apply to the federal government.

The Supreme Court made the best decision with respect to states’ rights in allowing Arizona to continue allowing taxpayers the freedom to direct their tax dollars.

Justice Kagan however, though accurate in her assertion that the state is merely getting around the clause, should scale back her raging rhetoric and concentrate on more relevant national issues that seek to reduce civil liberties and other injustices, rather than picking on a state for rounding about federal limitations in how it funds its moral future.

Leave a Comment