Replies

In order to be the slightest bit fair, we have to factor in the huge disparity between [Madison's] views on treasury expenditures in general and current practice.

So much for original intent. Please expand on that: how were his views of treasury expenditures different from current practice. Are you saying that if he were president today he ould not have vetoed the gift of public land for a church?

It would clearly be a judgement call what level of support constitutes establishment. The present-day interpretation does not use a Madisonion test, and it would be ludicrous to institute one now given circumstances beyond the control of we First Amendment interpreters.

I guess the 'Madisonian test' as exemplified by this veto message would be : "Are government funds being appropriate for the use and support of a religous society?" Note the lack of a threshold below which establishment does not occur.

One of the tests formulated by the SCOTUS is the "Lemon Test"

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

I'd say that the bill which failed Madison's test would also fail this test, the first two prongs in particular.

So much for original intent.

I ask a favor. Do me the kindness of reading my posts. I am not saying each and every one of my points is made of gold. No, in fact there is plenty of room for refutation, but I plead innocent to hypocrisy.

I believe the 1947 decision totally jettisoned original intent without any careful balancing. In my balancing, I believe there would be direct harm to religion by unfairly imposing a strict Madisonian expenditure test for establishment while not imposing a correspondingly strict test on other government expenditures. Government would have in effect passed a law respecting establishment of irreligion.

Anyway, I suggest we move on to other points.

Before moving on entirely ... Are you saying that if [JM] were president today he ould not have vetoed the gift of public land for a church?

I agree that in that clear case, it would make sense to do the same today. As would any other post-1820 President.

In other in between cases, you and I may disagree as to whether an absolutist stance on any funds whatever going to faith-based groups would even still be on the radar screen in the light of the utter horror he would undoubtedly experience at the bloat and intrusiveness of our federal government.