SCOTUS Right, Results Still Wrong
Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center, a ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri, wanted to replace the surface of their playground with recycled tires. The church submitted its application to participate in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ grant program for State funded recycled tires for playgrounds. The Missouri Constitution, under Article 1 sec 7 prohibits using tax payer funds “in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.” Pursuant to this provision of the Missouri Constitution, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied Trinity Lutheran’s application for tax payer dollars. Trinity Lutheran Church sued the State of Missouri in federal court and the supreme Court gave their opinion this week in favor of Trinity Lutheran, forcing the State of Missouri to allow the church to participate in the tax payer grant program. This case deals with the principle of Separation of Church and State and because America has taught an errant understanding of this principle for so long, the supreme Court got this case right, but Trinity Lutheran got it all wrong.
Government Cannot Discriminate Against a Church Any More Than It Can Discriminate in Favor of One.
The supreme Court’s 
logic on Trinity Lutheran’s suit is nearly spot on (although their application of jurisdiction is misplaced). Laws cannot discriminate and deny one person or organization a benefit that is offered to the public solely because that person or organization is a minister or a church. Equal protection under the law demands the government can no more discriminate against a church than it can discriminate in favor of one. Missouri must treat all grant applicants equally. The error is Trinity Lutheran seeking the very intrusion of government into its affairs. History proves this will destroy not only the liberties of their own church, but if the practice is adopted by other churches, will be the destruction religious liberty.
Trinity Should Have Considered the True Meaning of Separation of Church and State Before Asking for Government Grant Money
Although the Trinity Lutheran case is not a legal issue of Separation of Church and State, it should have been something considered by Trinity before even requesting the grant from the State. The principle of Separation of Church and State demands that the government should not have undo influence over the operation of the Church, which is exactly what Trinity has invited.
Here is the history behind this essential principle:
The supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S., took the phrase “separation of church and State” from a letter Thomas Jefferson, wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The Danbury Baptists were concerned with their new president’s dedication to the principle of no government interference in the governance of the church. The Danbury Baptists congratulated Jefferson on his election, then pressed Jefferson for assurance that his 
previous stand for religious liberty had not altered upon gaining office. Jefferson responded in 1802 with a very humble and somber promise:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Prior to his election, Jefferson, along with James Madison, took a very strong stand against a piece of legislation titled, “A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.” This bill was to collect a property tax from the people to pay teachers to teach the Christian Religion. Jefferson was vehemently opposed to this legislation, calling it “sinful and tyrannical.” Jefferson’s assessment of this bill was rooted in over 700 years of history and experience that shows that government should not take public funds to support religious practice and teaching. Jefferson knew that if the government was supplying funds to the church, it would result in the tyranny over government over the free conscience of the people; a church funded by government is a church ruled by government. The Danbury Baptists shared this historical understanding with Jefferson, also opposing this piece of legislation. They remarked, “…should the legislature assume the right of taxing the people for the support of the gospel it will be destructive to religious liberty… those whom the (government) employs in its Service, it has a right to regulate and dictate to; it may judge and determine who shall preach; when and where they shall preach.”
The resulting axiomatic truth: When tax dollars fund the operation of a church, the church is then subject to government regulations and its demands as a consequence of taking public funds. The result, for centuries, has always been detrimental to church autonomy and to religious liberty. Contrary to modern belief, Separation of Church and State is not a protection (or a weapon) for government, it is a protection for the freedom and autonomy of the church.
Ironically, Trinity Lutheran has just sued the State of Missouri for the opportunity to be regulated and dictated to by the State. Trinity’s win in the supreme Court is actually a loss of liberty for the congregation of that church. If other churches take this precedent into action, history will be ignored and government will gradually gain rule over the church and become an evil and oppressive government once again.
The text of our 1st Amendment and the clauses that mirror these principles in State Constitutions are the product of this history. Government influencing the church has always led to horrific events that history rarely wants to admit: laws requiring permits to teach, inquisitions, torture, and executions based upon government’s control of the church are the history of the struggle for religious liberty in American and abroad. These prohibitions were put into place on the national and State levels to protect the liberty of the church, not to protect the integrity of government. There is a greater duty to the church to keep government out of their business than there is to the court to keep church and government separated. Government money always comes with government regulations. Churches should learn to trust God for their needs instead of running to government to become their provider and ultimately their ruler. Trinity was wrong to ever ask for that money and they have established a precedent, that if copied by other churches ignorant of their duty, will result in Jefferson’s fear;
“…to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy (sic) at once destroys all religious liberty…” Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779
For a deeper understanding of Separation of Church and State in Context visit this article: http://krisannehall.com/in-context-separation-of-church-and-state/
As the political drama over federally mandated and funded healthcare drags on and on, citizens are left scratching their collective heads wondering why there seems to be little political energy or consensus even among Republicans to do what they promised. They promised to repeal this massive piece of legislation that reportedly gobbled up one sixth of the nation’s economy, pushed many premiums to record levels and removed personal choice from patients as never before; none of which the federal government has any enumerated authority to do since this is an issue reserved to the States to solve. Why can’t they seem to move in a Constitutional direction? Because federal control of healthcare has been a hobby and goal of the federal government and both political parties for a long, long time. Consider the following verifiable historical nuggets:
1994 Republicans Don Nickles and Cliff Stearns Consumer Choice Health Security Act mandating a federally defined minimum level of health insurance coverage, with 24 Republican co-sponsors including Newt Gingrich.
Over the next few weeks an 
On Wednesday the Oregon House passed legislation (
The process of the electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected to be president of these United States would accurately represent the union as a whole, not favoring certain States while ignoring others. The office of president, contrary to popular belief, was never designed to be a representative of individual citizens, but rather a representative of the collective interests of the States. A survey of the powers delegated to the president via Article 2 of the Constitution makes the role of the president quite clear. He is not the “leader of America,” he is the leader of the military upon declaration of war by Congress. He is part of the treaty process that makes contractual agreements with foreign governments and the States. Most everything that the president is to do, he does only with the consent of the Senate (the voice of the States). Together, the President and the Senate ensure that each State’s interests are represented equally in matters of war, peace, and foreign commerce. The office of the president was established to be the voice to foreign countries on behalf of the collective States. Because he is the representative of the States, the electors of the State are to choose their president based upon the person they believe will best represent the principles and interests of their State.
However, the national popular vote movement takes us even farther away from our Constitutional structure by further removing the independence of the States, and eliminating the voice of the people within those states. This legislation proposes that once a popular vote is complete across the nation, each elector of the State must choose the person elected by popular vote regardless of the collective choice of his fellow State citizens. This legislation mandates that each State submit to the popular choice, regardless of whether that candidate best represents the interests and principles of the people of that State. Through popular vote, the individual States would become completely irrelevant in the processes of the federal government. The president would no longer be required to ensure all States’ interests were represented in matters of foreign affairs. The president’s only concern, throughout the entire four years of his terms, would be to make sure the select few States, with the greatest voting population, were happy and pleased with the execution of his power. It would be like Georgia surrendering all its voice to New York and legislating themselves out of the political process or like Connecticut asking Texas to decide what is in the best interest of Connecticut.
Charles Cotesworth Pickney, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, summed up what was not only the popular belief of the delegates, but would also become the controlling belief in establishing Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution. He classified a national popular vote of the president to be “liable to the most obvious & striking objections.” He said if the people were to elect the president by popular vote, “They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”
enrichment of these States over every other State. A national popular vote, is in fact an oxymoron, as it would only reflect the voice of the majority, denying every person in their State a voice in the presidential election.
The Trump administration would like to privatize air traffic control, taking it from FAA control. That is exactly what should happen, but is that what will happen?
We must remember there is absolutely no authority for the federal government to regulate domestic flights. The assertion of necessity due to international flights or national security is a false assertion and does not create a domestic regulatory authority. The FAA should not exist as it does and it certainly has no constitutional authority to regulate our air traffic. Therefore, privatizing is exactly what should happen.
Also, we need to recognize the FAA will still exist and will still be exerting a great deal of control over the operation of any private entity taking over that roll. Additionally, most airports are not really private entities. Most airports are Public-Private Partnerships (P3’s) which are a hybrid of government agency and private business. Finally, the current plan to privatize air traffic control specifically designs the new non-profit corporations as Public-Private Partnerships.
corporations, making money like a private corporation, but carry the power, force, and often the funding of government. Your tax dollars often fund them, the authority of government empowers them, but you have no control over them. It is a semi-governmental bureaucracy that makes money like a private business but is funded in part or in whole by the government; proposes and enforces government regulations upon the people with the power of government, but the people elected no one holding this authority and share in none of the money collected.
The United Airlines scandal provided us with the perfect example of how these P3’s can go all wrong. The doctor who was forcefully and abusively removed from the plane for refusing to give up his seat to airline employees, was not removed from the plane by airline employees. He was removed from the plane by government employees.
Since These air traffic corporations are being specifically designed as P3’s, it would be improper to classify this proposed move as “privatization.”