For starters, the Founding States had decided that the states did not have to respect either the “government” powers prohibited by the Bill of Rights (BoR) to Congress, or the rights expressly protected by the BoR. Only the feds were limited by the BoR.
In other words, the states could make laws which reasonably limited 1st Amendment-protected rights for example.
In fact, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about “atheist” Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” concerning “government” power to regulate religion for example, the real Jefferson had noted the following. The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the states had reserved uniquely to themselves the specific powers to regulate 1st Amendment-protected rights for example, regardless that they had made 1A to prohibit such powers to Congress.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; [emphasis added] …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
H O W E V E R …
When the states ratified the 14th Amendment (that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances) they committed themselves to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR, as opposed to the government powers expressly prohibited to the feds by the BoR.
In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified that 14A did not take away state powers as the 1st Amendment prohibits such powers to the feds for example, but limited those same powers for the states.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
But the question remains, how did the states wind up also being prohibited from exercising 10th Amendment-protected state powers to address religious issues, powers that Jefferson had clearly indicated that they had, and that Bingham had indicated in wide language that 14A did not take away?
As indicated above, FDR’s state sovoreignty-ignoring justices did the dirty work. They did so by wrongly applying 1st Amendment prohibitions on federal powers concerning basic freedoms to the states through Section 1 of 14A, regardless that Bingham had officially clarified that 14A took away no state powers.
In fact, here is evidence of FDR’s activist justices wrongly ignoring Bingham’s clarification of the limits of 14A concerning state powers.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
In fact, noting that FDR had split the Court as he was building a state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice majority, Justice Reed had clarified that it is the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A-protected rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
But while explanation of unconstitutional federal government interference in 10A-protected state power to address religious issues is relatively easy to explain up to this point, the tangents to be examined are beyond the scope of a post at this point.
The bottom line is that INTRAstate public religious displays are another issue, like so-called politically correct constitutional “rights” to gay “marriage” and abortion, where patriots need to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Stellar Post!
You should apply for a position with Team Trump! ~ MAGA!