question: WHY CAN'T WE SUE THE PRESIDENT?

In the Christian Science Monitor’s article, “Supreme Court takes up church-state case”, it discussed the public opinion of the president’s strong ties with his faith in his administrative programs. It is a debate upon wither or not the separation of church and state should have “no contact with each other” or that “it has gone too far”. The article also discusses the possibility to sue the congress and the possibility to sue the president.

In the discussion of the separation of church and state I would have to take a stand on the side of the “no contact with each other.” A government should only make its decisions for the people based on facts of the world rather on the religious faith of the president. The president is suppose to be the representative of the people of the United States, however by allowing his religious perspectives to distract his decisions it is not representative of the executive branch. Therefore he is not doing his job in a correct manner. There are various religious people in the United States the president should not be allowed to let his view affect the whole nation. His actions violates the first amendment of freedom to religion, he should not force the views of his faith onto policies where people do not accept them.

The article gave an example of how the taxpayers do not agree with how the government is spending the money. The courts argued that the taxpayers must have a direct injury suffered in order for them to sue. “The same principle applies to most constitutional cases. If the government violates a constitutional right, like the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the injured individual can sue in court to hold the government accountable for its abuses.”

But the question arises, what if the government violates the first amendment’s establishment clause that prohibits the government from promoting religion? Which is exactly what the president is doing in this case, having government work with religious organizations to do nonreligious services such as running a shelter. I realize that the president have some positive points to support the decision, however it does not over ride the fact that the religion is not shared among the country and it does violate citizen’s rights in the country. And if the government themselves violates the constitution, the people will start violating it also. There will not be any laws to govern the country with. The government is supposed to set an example how ever in this case they failed to do so.

The article states that there are exceptions for taxpayers to sue the congress, because in 1968 the exception with Hein V. Freedom from Religion Foundation. The Bush administration argued that the case was only able to be challenged because it raised church-state concerns. Then why should the executive branch not be allowed to be sued also? Our government is supposed to provide us with a fair trail. If the congress can be sued then so can the executive. The 1968 exception applies to the establishment-clause violations in the government. Not just the congress.

I am sure that the Supreme Court would see the injustice in the executive decision, isn’t the Supreme Court suppose to be just and fair? The case in which the president is allowing inter-relationship with religious groups and the government is not a relative national crisis. Therefore there are no reasons or facts supporting the executive argument.

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •