Tim Keller's article insightfully explores the flawed legal reasoning behind and potentially pernicious consequences of the Arizona Supreme Court's 2009 "Cain vs. Horne" ruling. He carefully examines the two fundamental flaws in the court's interpretative methodology: a failure to engage in a straightforward textual analysis of Arizona's Blaine Amendment and an unwillingness to adhere to the analytic framework that the court itself had previously established. In addition, Keller discusses the implications of the Cain decision, demonstrating why it is not persuasive legal authority for similarly situated constitutional provisions in other states. This brief comment notes that Keller's analysis identifies the fundamental misapprehension that underpins Cain: an unwillingness on the part of many courts to accept their Blaine Amendments at face value and a lack of clarity about the difference between direct and indirect aid. (Contains 7 notes.)