Nowhere in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” do you see ANY mention of ANY state or local government, or ANY entity of the United States federal government other than the first word-Congress (the US legislative body).

You must not have heard the news. You’re certainly not alone if you disagree with the Incorporation doctrine, but it does exist and it will apply to this case.

Noone who has actually read the bill of rights would suggest that Indiana license plates bearing “In God We Trust” has anything to do with any “establishment clause.”

You want to use a strict interpretation of the constitution? That’s fine; there are portions that I would like to see strictly interpreted too. It takes a special kind of arrogance, however, to speak as if the issue is cut and dried, when the precedents are anything but.

Jeff Molby, perhaps you should re-read the complaint. It’s lodged because of the discrimination ,
not because of the separation issue. Pick a stance and stick with it. Again, apples and oranges.

I was responding to the hypothetical posed by Lord Nazh in comment #1.

since this is the same phrase should this ruling not apply to it as well?

Possibly, but that’s not an apples to apples comparison. Ironically, the state would probably have a better case if they put the phrase on every plate. They opened themselves up by offering this specialty plate under notably different terms than all other specialty plates.

The compelling reason to offer the plates seems to be the people that seem to want them.

That’s not sufficient to override a constitutional violation, if one is deemed to have occurred.

The compelling reason to offer the plates seems to be the people that seem to want them.

This is what was ruled about “In God we trust” on currency, since this is the same phrase should this ruling not apply to it as well?

Big deal! Indiana offers “In God we trust” plates for free and charges for “Disabled Veteran” plates. Arkansas charges a fee for their “In God we trust” plates, but offers “Disabled Veteran” plates free.

C’mon now, you know those aren’t all apples. No one would suggest a “Disabled Veteran” plate has anything to do with the establishment clause. The people of Arkansas are free to offer preferential treatment to that group if they so choose. “In God We Trust” is not as simple.

If Indiana charged the $15 for the specialty plates, then the ACLU would sue over church-state issues.

Maybe, because there still isn’t a compelling reason for the state to be offering the plates in the first place, but the state is certainly compounding the matter by offering the plates for free. It’s one thing to offer the plates (questionable, but probably legal considering the historical relevance of the phrase), it’s a whole ‘nother thing to give the plates preferential treatment.

So if someone wants to purchase an “In God We Trust” plate for $40 will $15 go towards administrative fees and $25 go towards a religious foundation?

No, the $25 environmental donation goes to a state trust. As a libertarian, I question whether the state should even have such a trust, but it definitely would have no business creating a similar trust for religious matters. If you want to donate $25 to a religious entity, just go ahead and do it. You don’t need the state to act as a broker.

The 1st Amendment does protect the free exercise of religion… does license plates count as an “exercise?”

Yes, but the plates are state-issued, so the establishment clause is relevant too. As usual, it’ll be up to the courts to find the proper balance.