Hi! It's "Mrs. Caelus" :: raise eyebrow::
Anyways, to all you non-U.S. Government-freaks:
The article was a bit confusing. The Plymouth Rock was a great big hypothetical that the Justices keep pounding Clement with and he keeps having more and more problems arguing his case. (Which is Let Pres. Bush put money where he wants, it only violates the establishment clause if Congress does it. This is because of court precedents that are confusing even the Justices and Lawyers in question. It says that as a taxpayer, you cannot question the Executive branches spending on the establishment clause issue. But there are different interpretations of the precedents, hence the issue. The issue is not truly the establishment clause but if the taxpayers can question an executive action.)(I think)
I suggest skimming the court transcript
if you are interested. It is rather funny. There's not a lot of "legal-esse" and the transcriptionist even put in "(Laughter)".
I'm currently on page 25 out of 73. And that is where I have gotten the info in this post. I could be rather wrong about some of this, I am just a student of government, not a practitioner or a teacher.
Also, it does not seem that the money is actually going to a church, but to good-works organizations that are based in relgion. Like a organization of Baptist women who get together on Wednesdays and feed the homeless. Even AA, it could be argued, is a relgious organization. I don't have a problem with the program, except for the fact that Pres. Bush seems to be targeting specificly good-works organizations that are religious in nature. There would be nothing wrong, in my eyes, with giving those Baptist women govenrment money, if they also considered giving money to the good city of Whatever, USA organizations that have no particular religious affilation.
Hope this helps. As I said, I could be wrong.