Chief Justice Earl Warren outlined a two part test to establish whether a taxpayer has standing to sue regarding a public policy in the Flast decision. These are to “...establish a logical link between [taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked” and “...show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Article I, Section 8.” Note that this ruling avoided the issue of public aid to religious-affiliated schools and appeared to modify the Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) decision. If you were a state legislator considering a tax bill, would you feel that the Flast decision provides clear guidelines regarding taxpayer standing to sue regarding expenditures of public funds, or would you be concerned that many programs would be subject to challenge?