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."
No - I was correcting you as to an analogy. It's back to your stand that all judges are evil and can't be trusted, so if a Justice takes a position - it must be wrong even if it is right.
You have NOT been arguing from a constructionist view, nor have you arguing for respecting states rights.
State rights are limited in the framework of the federal system - the core of my argument and the core of our federal constitutional system, thus constructionist.
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.
Incorrect. No state may violate the Constitution - it's written that way as I quoted earlier.
The First Amendment says no such thing. It only restricts the Congress (e.g., the Federal Government).
Again, no state may invalidate part of the Constitution. Your argument was used, badly, by states defending poll taxes, literacy voting tests, and other measures in the reconstruction era. Or, Wyoming could not pass laws making the owning and reading of newspapers illegal.
I do not advocate usurpation of power. You do.
The position of a state government requiring creationism in school is an usurpation. You have since backed off of that position but allowing the states to regulate or establish a state religion is also a violation.
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"
[snip - Danbury letter]
Did you know that two days after Jefferson sent that letter to Danbury he attended public worship services in the U. S. Capital building?
Not even close - there is no problem with an official making a declarative statement, such as invocations, thanksgiving prayers, etc. but there is a problem with making a specific religious view a law or a government giving legal preference to a religion or denomination.
After passing the First Amendment, Congress called on Washington to give a national prayer of Thanksgiving. No conflict. Georgia requiring that state biology courses be taught according to the "First Church of the Risen" - big conflict.
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?
Source? From what I have read the Danbury letter was part of a defense against the charges that Jefferson was not religious, the atheist charge from the 1800 campaign, and mounting criticism from New England states that his administration was anti-religion. Thus, he came out with the famous position that church and state should be separate.
Jefferson as a federal government source is corrupt by your positions and thus not to be trusted.
Another "corrupt federal source" is Madison, who fought against the state support of religion and churches. In his address to the Virginia assembly regarding the state supporting a church:
a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined.Also from the address:
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.[snip]
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
[snip]
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
[snip]
Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. (emphasis added)
Clearly Madison took a strong stand against the role of a state government in religion. It is not the role of government at any level.