Court Opinion

ID: 9680077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:18:46.592418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.193185
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge
(dissenting).
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of Missouri reads as follows:
“That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.” (Emphasis mine.)
I think it must be conceded that the money paid out under the challenged statutory scheme will result in aid to some denominations of religion. The statutory mode of payment of such money to students, rather than directly to institutions for sectarian purposes, is itself a classic example of indirect aid to denominations of religion.
The principal opinion quotes the provisions of Art. I, § 7, supra. They are not thereafter mentioned. The principal opinion thus ignores the indirect aid proscription in Art. I, § 7, supra, and applies to Missouri the less restrictive federal position on separation of church and state as articulated in Roemer.
In my opinion, the statutory scheme is facially unconstitutional because it authorizes violations of Art. I, § 7, supra.
I respectfully dissent.