_First Things_ First

_First Things_ First
  1 December 2003

... first come, first served; First of December, First Amendment,
first blood, ....


Newsgroupies, what do _you_ think: may a separate state, one of the
nifty fifty, one allegedly possessed of "sovereign immunity" and other
majestic attributes, pass legislation that enjoins things like

  "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to
any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or the support of any
religious establishment"

and

  "All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public
funds shall be forever free of sectarian control"

-- or does that sort of provision somehow violate the Fedguv
Constitution?


After you decide strictly for yourself like the Bani Murdoch always
do, you can compare notes with a long and learned theo-con scribble

  << http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0312/articles/munoz.html
>>.

(The case of _Davey v. Locke_ is first mentioned about 40% of the way
through, in the paragraph beginning "Perhaps providentially....")

BGKB.  Happy days.
  --JHM

PS.  It probably doesn't much matter what we think, though: Justices
Kennedy and O'Connor are very unlikely to give Prof. Dr. Muñoz what he
wants.  _Erin go bragh_.