-
The New Animal House
April 12, 2012 | 69 comments
-
What Obama Should Tell the Kids
September 14, 2010 | 15 comments
-
Don’t Get CAUT Policing Canadian Higher Education
April 23, 2010 | 16 comments
-
Confusing a Liberal Education With Public Education
September 23, 2009 | 31 comments
-
President Obama’s Odd Example
September 11, 2009 | 18 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Seeing Through a Fake Injury
Supreme Court upholds Arizona educational tax credit — and greater school choice.
Numerous American parents experience this dilemma. Their child is struggling for any number of reasons in the local public school. They would like to give their child a chance in another environment. However, they cannot afford to move or choose other educational options. They’re trapped.
You would think that a law meant to reduce the financial barriers restricting these parents would be welcomed. Yet, certain groups are so scared of anything that reduces the barriers to parents choosing, if the choosing involves religious schools, that they will fake an injury to derail a law that does so. Fortunately, five Supreme Court justices yesterday reminded a group of fakers from Arizona that they were not injured by such a law.
The law those claiming injury wanted declared unconstitutional was a 1997 Arizona bill that provides tax credits for contributions to School Tuition Organizations (STOs). These STOs would then use the contributions to provide scholarships to students attending private schools.
There were two important things about the program. First, families or other Arizonans could support this scholarship fund and receive a tax credit and not merely a tax deduction. Second, the STOs could provide scholarships for students attending either secular or religious schools.
Those claiming injury brought suit against one of the STOs, the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, on the basis that their First Amendment rights were violated. They argued the tax credits were given to help provide scholarships to students attending private religious schools and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.
Fortunately, five of the juris doctors saw through the fake injury. To sue, they pointed out that you have to prove that you experienced injury and that the Court’s decision could address that injury. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that the Arizona program may actually save the state money since it could lead to the state having to pay for the education of fewer children. There’s certainly no injury in that particular case.
Even if the tax credit adversely influenced Arizona’s education budget, he observed, no injury occurred unless an eventual tax increase was caused by the tax credit program (a claim that those claiming an injury never established).
Finally, the Court noted that even if the financial connection was established, no Establishment Clause problem exists. As Kennedy wrote, “a tax credit allows dissenting taxpayers to use their own funds in accord with their own consciences.” In other words, it doesn’t force anyone to give money to a religious organization through a government program. After all, “Private citizens create private STOs; STOs choose beneficiary schools; and taxpayers then contribute to STOs.” The government merely refunds their money.
Oddly, the fakers claim that when Arizonans give their own money to the private school scholarship funds, they are depriving the government of money. Consequently, those who do not give suffer some sort of indirect Establishment Clause injury.
To the majority of the Court, this claim faked an injury. As the Court noted, this view “assumes that all income is government property, even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands.” In contrast, the majority held, “When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to STOs, they spend their own money, not money the State has collected from respondents or from other taxpayers.… Private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona State Treasury.” It’s good to know that we’re not at that point yet.
It’s also good to know that Arizona’s parents can be assured that a scholarship program providing them greater educational choice is no longer held hostage by fake injury claims.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Perry L. Glanzer
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/05/seeing-through-a-fake-injury
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alert1201| 4.5.11 @ 7:43AM
The scary thing is that 4 of or SC justices could not see this.
David W| 4.5.11 @ 8:38AM
4 of the jurists believe that even indirect, pseudo support of anything that smacks of religion (unless the favored one, islam) is wrong. The idea is not to help students, but to "hurt" religious affiliated schools (who apparently don't teach reading or writing or math or sciences but just provides bible studies to create a generation of progressive-phobic adults).
Ellis Wyatt| 4.5.11 @ 10:11AM
The 4 dissenters believe that it is the government's money in the first place.
Otso Gogmagog| 4.5.11 @ 2:33PM
Depriving government of resources is a particularly nasty form of Anti-Soviet Behavior. Hooligans who indulge in such offenses should be sent to reeducation camp.
Anthony| 4.5.11 @ 10:44AM
Amen, and Obozo is salivating at the prospect of picking 2-3 Justices.
As far as the left is concerned, Obozo's BILLION $ re-election campaign is chump change if it means control of the S.C.
America is on the verge of the unspeakable.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.5.11 @ 2:05PM
That's always my reaction to a slam-dunk case that should have reached a unanimous conclusion. Who are these four morons? Conservatives generally follow the law and if they don't like it, they attempt to have it changed, legally. Liberals follow the law only when it suits them. They use it as a tool to force extremely unpopular policy onto others. Liberal judges rule from their leftist ideals, then attempt to justify it with whatever "legal" argument they can come up with as a weak cover. Constitution, rule of law be damned.
Frank Eisenhart| 4.5.11 @ 8:51AM
The sad thing about this is that it was apparently a 5-4 decision. I am guessing, but it is a confident guess, that the minority was the usual liberal foursome. The Court has become so politically charged that even a no-brainer decision like this one breaks down along ideological lines.
mames| 4.5.11 @ 11:45AM
Ye s and after several have cited foreign law or natural law to defend their opinions no one, not one congressman has filed and tried to have them impeached as they should be. The law they are to use is the Constitution in its original intent which is both simple and highly available. Anyone with a high school education can understand the Constitution in its original intent ( the original writers wrote all about what and why they wrote) which is why there are no requirements for sitting on that bench.
The Bruce| 4.5.11 @ 1:31PM
"Anyone with a high school education can understand the Constitution in its original intent..."
That would be true if they actually learned about the Constitution in high school. They simply don't anymore, save for a few constitutional amendments.
Average young 20-somethings these days can't even tell you how many branches of government there are, let alone name them. It's that scary.
DANSHANTEAL| 4.5.11 @ 2:27PM
MY PARENTS SENT US FOUR KIDS TO CATHOLIC SCHOOLS THOUGH HIGH SCHOOL ON A WAREHOUSEMAN'S PAY. YET THEIR PROPERTY TAXES SUPPORTED PUBLIC SHOOLS. THE MORAL OF THE STORY: SACRIFICE IS EASY TO SPELL BUT MUCH HARDER TO LIVE.
Timely Renewed | 4.5.11 @ 4:54PM
The fundamental problem here is the modern misinterpretation of the first amendment's Establishment clause. "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a correct interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole meaning of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of "separation of church and state" are an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, as well as creating a jurisprudence which even pro-separationists acknowledge is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
Intelligent Design| 4.5.11 @ 5:28PM
State and local governments should sell the public schools to private education companies. This would ensure free enterprise competition, which invariably leads to reduced costs, freedom to choose, and higher quality. State and local taxes would be cut in half, and education companies would be free to hire qualified non-union teachers. In addition to selling the K-12 schools, the states should sell their public colleges. The entire business of education would be revolutionized, our students would be free of political curriculum, and the United States would be a stronger country.
This plan should be combined with the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, and the elimination of all federal funding of schools.
CAROL | 4.6.11 @ 1:02AM
Yes, Intelligent Design...well done.
Government schools are unconstitutional:
Here's why:
Equal Protection: Giving $20,000.00 public funds to one student and $-0- to another violates this & also the one receiving the $-0- has to pay the $20,000.00 to the favored one...
Establishment Clause: Governement schools are an establishment of secular humanism at taxpayer expense...
Free Exercise: If a student's religion requires him or her to attend a private school, having to pay for government schools violates the free excercise of their religion.
Tulsa Jack| 4.6.11 @ 2:25PM
This article is incomplete. I am curious to learn who are the justices who supported the phony "injury" argument, with the bizarro idea that all citizens' private money belongs to the state, except what politicians decide to let them keep. If that principle is in any way related to supporting Americans' Constitutional rights under the rule of law, I'd like to know what it is.
Since in fact there is no connection, the justices who opposed this decision are by definition in violation of their oath of office. Of course we all know who they are: the four D-rat libtards. These mendacious ideologues aren't judges. They're political hacks who couldn't care less about freedom or the law. Get them off of the damn Supreme Court!
Skippy| 4.6.11 @ 4:21PM
Right on, ID
Long have I advocated the ending of public education. Ending, not mending.
Sell the facilities,
fire all the employees,
close the Ed Depts,
refund the taxes,
hand the parents back their children,
let the free market entrepeneurs organize a new system.
Then get out of the way as American kids become the best and most accurately educated students on Earth.
Once again!
shipley130| 4.11.11 @ 2:07PM
I wonder how the godless wise Latina voted.
classifieds | 5.12.11 @ 11:17AM
Fantastic post! I’m just starting out in community management/marketing media and looking to understand how to do it effectively - resources like this post are incredibly helpful. As our company is based inside the US, it’s all a bit new to us. The example above is something that I worry about as well, how you can show your own genuine enthusiasm and share the fact that your product is useful in that case.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:51PM
is good