I don’t like this ruling at all. The reason is, it will force the recognition of non-Christian prayers (you see those drooling atheists out there?) The ruling made it clear that the prayers was permitted ONLY because it was non-discriminatory.
Having litigated many a Constitutional issue, the First Amendment applies to any government restriction. That was not how this was ruled.
I remember years ago, I taught a Sunday School class about prayer in school. I was, at least at the beginning of the class, the only one against it and was typically known as the most conservative member of the Congregation. In the end, I made it clear that ... rest assured, it will NOT end up being the Prayer you want.
The Constitution thinks long term. That’s it’s genius and inspiration. That’s the “God” in it. This is a short term decision. This can be used to stifle our beliefs.
Be careful what you wish for ...
The text and original intent of the Constitution is what it is. The courts cannot (legally) change it.
All powers not expressly enumerated and specifically delegated by the constitution to the federal government are reserved to the sovereign states and to the people.
That was my impression as a layman as well. Glad to see it confirmed.
I don't see any caveats in the 1st Amendment at all. An establishment requires coercion. If there's no force involved, government can favor, even promote, any religion it wants subject to the next election. It appears to be that cut-and-dried to me!
See Post #20. The “incorporation clause” is another invention of an activist SCOTUS.
As Thomas Jefferson said, What difference does it make if my neighbor worships one god or a hundred gods? He neither steals my wallet nor breaks my leg.
Courts would do well to remember that where there is no harm, there is no call for legal intrusion. Of course that proposition plentifully applied would ruin the legal industry, so expect it to appear sparingly.
You don't like what ruling?