It's not even an analogy - it's a restatement of your position. You refused the constitutional argument on the basis that judges are evil. An analogy would be that if Hitlery Clinton voted to support the war in Iraq, and Hitlery is evil, then the war in Iraq must be opposed even if it is the right thing to do.
In fact, most of your statements have been supportive of the doctrine of a "living constitution", the doctrine big-government leftists. Are you a leftist?
See- that is deceitful - a mis-characterization twisted into an ad hominem attack. I have been arguing from the constructionist view including the use of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas for case sources, all constructionists. A constructionist view is also that of keeping government out of situations it doesn't belong. A constructionist includes respecting the Constitution at a state level even if actions at the federal have been have been otherwise. A position in direct opposition to that you have stated.
Instead, you have taken a position of convenience. The Constitution and precedence are fine (to justify some anti-big government) should they agree with your views but wrong if they hinder them (Article VI, Amend 1 & 14). You have stated views to the far right socially, but have advocated intrusive government as long as it is the right kind of intrusive government.
That's craziness. That's something a leftist does when on the other foot. You are confusing your beliefs with mine.
I have been arguing from the constructionist view including the use of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas for case sources, all constructionists. A constructionist view is also that of keeping government out of situations it doesn't belong. A constructionist includes respecting the Constitution at a state level even if actions at the federal have been have been otherwise. A position in direct opposition to that you have stated.
You have NOT been arguing from a constructionist view, nor have you arguing for respecting states rights. You stated, "If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others". That is totally contrary to a strict constructionist's view. A strict constuctionist would know that it is the right of any state legislature to pass any law it pleases respecting the establishment of religion, and to allow any subject it pleases to be taught in public schools.
You also wrote, "If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others. The First Amendment says no such thing. It only restricts the Congress (e.g., the Federal Government). States were not restricted until federal judges usurped power from the states (note the Congress has never voted to restrict states rights on religion, to my knowledge. All usurpations have come from unelected federal judges).
The Constitution and precedence are fine (to justify some anti-big government) should they agree with your views but wrong if they hinder them (Article VI, Amend 1 & 14). You have stated views to the far right socially, but have advocated intrusive government as long as it is the right kind of intrusive government.
That is total, 100% nonsense. Regarding the former, big, instrusive government comes from precedent, not from the Constitution (the Constitution includes the Amendments, BTW). Regarding the latter; instrusive government comes from usurpation of power, beginning at the federal level. I do not advocate usurpation of power. You do.
I think I see the problem. You have been so magnificently brainwashed with the "separation of church and state" myth that you do not realize you do not understand strict constructionism. The following was included in an 1808 letter of Thomas Jefferson, 6 years after the infamous "separation of Church and State" letter"
"I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1808.
Did you know that two days after Jefferson sent that letter to Danbury he attended public worship services in the U. S. Capital building? That he authorized the use of the War Office and Treasury building for church services? That he provided, at the government's expense, Christian missionaries to the Indians? That he put chaplains on the government payroll? That he provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. That he sent Congress an Indian treaty that provided funding for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church?
In 1822, four years before his death, Jefferson wrote, "In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony."
Also in 1822, he wrote, "In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other."