In an incorrect decision, an appeals court has tossed out a previous ruling on the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer.
A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation did not have standing to sue because while they disagree with the president’s proclamation, it has not caused them any harm.
When I read the headlines about an overturned ruling, I expected some BS premise about the day being private and/or not government endorsed. But no, instead there’s this flimsy reason about standing. Apparently the government can actually endorse any religion now because no American citizen has any sort of standing to make a legal challenge.
Bizarrely, though, despite the piss-poor reason given, the justices decided to go ahead and attempt to make an argument for the constitutionality of the law. This makes no legal sense. By ruling on standing, it is only personal – not legal – interest that is motivating a continued response:
The appeals court said in an opinion written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook that while the National Day of Prayer proclamation speaks to all citizens, no one is obliged to pray “any more than a person would be obliged to hand over his money if the President asked all citizens to support the Red Cross or other charities.”
Except the First Amendment doesn’t establish a wall of separation between charity and state. Analogy fail, jackass.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Frank Easterbook, Freedom From Religion Foundation, National Day of Prayer |
For the Sake of Science 
You think not having standing to sue is a piss poor reason?
Just because you disagree?
Come on Michael.
It’s a piss poor reason because it is saying that no American has standing to challenge these sort of laws. It’s a way to make an end-run around the First Amendment.
Only in the same way that I cant sue Bob if he punches you in the nose.
You have to have standing in any case and to have standing you have to have damages or harm. If no one can prove harm here than its a waste of time to even bother with it. You take a symbolic act and counter it with a symbolic court case and just waste money and time for nothing.
I’d be happier if the government didn’t waste ANY time making proclamations and “days” for anyone, for any reason. Pass laws, not junk like this, if it doesn’t do anything than I feel like my time, my taxes are being wasted.
Exactly.
Why doesn’t the wasting of money qualify as harm?
(iPhone: from I95 in South Carolina)
It’s a good question.
I think the answer is, did your taxes go up? Did some essential service go down? Were you a government employee that was layed off to pay for the sheet of paper the proclamation was printed on?
All level of government issue proclamations to support sections of society. I still think its a waste of time and energy and probably money, but it seems to be a common function of government.