Article VI clearly says that: "-- This Constitution, ---- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.
Article VI. - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
George Tucker's 1803 View of the Constitution annotated to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Volume 1 — Appendix
Note D
[Section 18 - Miscellaneous Provisions (cont.)]
The most satisfactory answer seems to be, that the powers entrusted to the federal government being all positive, enumerated, defined, and limited to particular objects; and those objects such as relate more immediately to the intercourse with foreign nations, or the relation in respect to war or peace, in which we may stand with them; there can, in these respects, be little room for collision, or interference between the states, whose jurisdiction may be regarded as confided to their own domestic concerns, and the United States, who have no right to interfere, or exercise a power in any case not delegated to them; or absolutely necessary to the execution of some delegated power. That, as this control cannot possibly extend beyond those objects to which the federal government is competent, under the constitution, and under the declaration contained in the twelfth article, so neither ought the laws, or even the constitution of any state to impede the operation of the federal government in any case within the limits of it's constitutional powers. That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
___________
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 1. Declaration of Rights
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.
***
All the states have similar clauses. Look them up for yourself.
___________
FYI- legal Definition
(http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com):
civil law
3: the law established by a nation or state for its own jurisdiction
military law
law enforced by military rather than civil authority
Well...since the STATES are CIVIL authorities and the federal government is a MILITARY authority, I'd say the States WOULD be upholding the Constitution by abiding by their Constitutional jurisdictions and insisting the federal/national government to do the same.
<<--- the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states.
If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause?
Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
Article VI clearly says that: "-- This Constitution, ---- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.>>
And each state has a state Supreme Court to determine whether a violation has been committed. The law of this land, as you put it, forbids the Federal Government from iterfering in these matters, so if you have respect for the laws of this land, you will oppose said interferrence.