I have said REPEATEDLY that I thought Pryor should have stood up to the feds. Why do you refuse to let that salient detail soak in? My point is, no matter what you and I consider to be Constitutional (and I doubt we're all that far apart on that subject), in this day and age, the federal judiciary has the last say in the matter, unless Congress cuts off their funding for specific areas such as the Pledge matter. So Pryor was, in effect, following the law as it stands, and my argument with you is not with the appropriateness of Pryor's actions, but with your claim that he was not following the law.
Our objective must be to create more conservatives who understand the concept of limited federal government, which in turn will impact Congress, the Presidency and eventually the judiciary. But when some of your cohorts are deriding erstwhile allies because we're just not true enough believers, you're never going to get anywhere in that direction.