Coal: A Human History By Barbara Freese was an interesting little book by an attorney general of Minnesota, whose study of the substance for the state's environmental concerns led her to write this book. A book on coal of all things has the potential to be dull, but it turns out to be a fascinating story that reaches from hundreds of millions of years ago to the current day. She starts to summarize more when she gets close to the present day and basically skips over the whole (and fascinating in its own way) issue of the derivatives of coal such as artificial colors (one book on this subject is Mauve) and sweetners. All the same, it is a good read, focusing on coal's role in the human history of Britain, the United States, and China. The book ends with a hope that we will one day move past this problematic energy source.

Religious funding and federalism: To add to my discussion of the Locke v. Davey case, another issue raised is federalism. Some legal theorists argue that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was primarily a state power matter, removing from the federal government that right to control a best left to the states. This would mean that the Fourteenth Amendment, involving individual freedoms, would not necessarily mean that states have no power to "establish" religion. If so, Washington might have the power to decide that it wants to be crystal clear that it wants to separate itself from religious institutions. This would include a broad ban on funding.

The problem with this argument is that there are other clauses to the Constitution. For instance, the Equal Protection Clause, not around when the First Amendment first was ratified, complicates selectively burdening religious groups. On the other hand, equality was still an honored principle back then, and the Establishment Clause was not deemed a violation of it. Also, by not funding religion, one has an equal restriction ... the alternative provides state benefits to certain religions over others.

Furthermore, free speech and free exercise might show their faces here. Again, however, those who put forth the state rights view of the Establishment Clause often tend to believe states should have some flexibility that the Congress does not have in carrying out protections found in the Bill of Rights. Allowing states to try different ways to honor religious liberty, including arguing funding religion burdens it by forcing one to fund the promotion of religions they do not support seems reasonable.

There are ways around this, of course. The point, however, is that the seemingly simple views of many on Davey's side turn out to be a bit more complex than they might seem. The same applies the other way around -- once states cannot fund religious practice, where is the stopping point? How about lottery tickets, one person asked. On the other hand, not every case that wounds up in the Supreme Court is simple, right?

Marci Hamilton has a good article on the case here, including the statement that "the Establishment Clause singles out religion and calls for its selective treatment." I'd add, though in other places she is loathe to, "as does the Free Exercise Clause," but the sentiment holds true all the same.