“Parents should be able to choose what school their children attend and where their money goes. Just because religious schools can join the program on the same basis as non-religious ones doesn’t make it unconstitutional”

Supreme Court justices squabbled Wednesday over whether or not an Arizona tax credit for donations to non-profit scholarship providers oversteps the dividing line between church and state.

The U.S. Supreme Court held a hearing yesterday to discuss the constitutionality of an Arizona state law that allows state residents to receive dollar-for-dollar income tax breaks for donations ranging from $500 to $1,000 to non-profit school tuition organizations (STOs). These organizations use the donations to give students scholarships to attend a private school.

Some taxpayers claim most of the money is being directed to organizations that restrict scholarships to religious education. Opponents of the program argue it is unconstitutional because it amounts to state endorsement of religion
According to court reports, Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal questioned the legal standing of the lawsuit challenging the state law.

Katyal asserted that no taxpayer has the right to challenge in court a state’s spending decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg then inquired about Flast v. Cohen, a 1968 case that allowed taxpayers to legally challenge government’s spending decisions when it clashes with the constitution’s Establishment Clause. Katyal maintained that Flast v. Cohen did not apply to the case.

The Arizona Private School Tax Credit Law, established in 1997, states, “The credit allowed by this section is in lieu of any deduction pursuant to section 170 of the internal revenue code and taken for state tax purpose.”

Read More: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101104/high-court-weighs-tax-credit-for-religious-school-scholarships/