Sure it does, tpaine. The Constitution as written or modified by amendment is the supreme law of the land. But what if this "supreme law" has been grossly mangled/misinterpreted by nine rather ideological sitting justices, back in 1962? What does that do to the supreme law?
It seems to mean that there was one "supreme law" prior to 1962, and a different "supreme law" thereafter. And the difference is not in the details, but is a transformation of the entire substance and meaning of the religion clause. In effect, the justices simply substituted their own "preference" rather than follow what the Framers clearly said.
It takes an amendment to change the supreme law in such a profound way. Where was the constitutional amendment? Or did the justices just effectively "amend" the Constitution in a way that does not pass muster with Article V?
Betty, at some point you are going to have to face up to the fact that our 'federal' constitution has a supremacy clause that says that states are bound to follow the basic principles/laws of the United States Constitution. One of these basic principles, as you admit, -- is keeping government out of religion, and vice/versa.
Thus, fed/state/local public funded schools cannot favor any of 'the establishments of religion'. Such a simple concept, - why is it so difficult for some to understand? -4267-
Sure it does, tpaine. The Constitution as written or modified by amendment is the supreme law of the land. But what if this "supreme law" has been grossly mangled/misinterpreted by nine rather ideological sitting justices, back in 1962? What does that do to the supreme law?
Nothing. The principles remain. - Maybe 'mangled' in your opinion, but what actual right do you claim to have personally lost in '62?
It seems to mean that there was one "supreme law" prior to 1962, and a different "supreme law" thereafter. And the difference is not in the details, but is a transformation of the entire substance and meaning of the religion clause. In effect, the justices simply substituted their own "preference" rather than follow what the Framers clearly said.
Millions of your peers don't see it that way betty. -- Get the constitution amended, - or reinterpreted, - if you can.
It takes an amendment to change the supreme law in such a profound way. Where was the constitutional amendment? Or did the justices just effectively "amend" the Constitution in a way that does not pass muster with Article V?
Read their decision. They saw religious & individual freedom in their "misinterpretation". - You didn't? Good luck on getting it interpreted differently.
And even if you did 'win', civil disobedience would negate any restrictive law, -- much as prohibition was ignored or gun grabbing laws are being ignored presently.
In the end determined minorities of freedom loving 'we the people' are the ultimate judges of constitutionality. I hope that some day we can all agree on that.
The majority opinion does not rule on matters of inalienble individual rights to life, liberty, or property.