Then let me focus it for you:
Congress is forever banned from making laws in this area. Read the First Amendment with your mind unclouded by modern liberal revisionist thinking. For a federal judge to dictate in such a way based on nonexistent law which in fact cannot exist is tyrannical and 'lawless'.
No act of Congress was involved here, so your point is pointless.
Read the First Amendment with your mind unclouded by modern liberal revisionist thinking.
Now, apply the 14th and the question is, has an omnicient judiciary been created? That is a far more profound question than anything contained in the personal attacks you level at me.
For a federal judge to dictate in such a way based on nonexistent law which in fact cannot exist is tyrannical and 'lawless'.
Once again, I see nothing in the First which applies here. This is a state with a religious monument in its courthouse, which is a 10th Amendment issue, not a 1st.
The 14th Amendment extended the reach of the 1st Amendment to all government agencies, including states.
In the context of the 1st Amendment, 'law' is considered to include an action or policy.
Judge Moore therefore may make no law nor perform any action in his role as a government official respecting an establishment of religion. Establishing a large religious monument prominently in a government building was a clear violation of the First Amendment