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.
That is nonsensical gobbledegook.
It's back to your stand that all judges are evil and can't be trusted.
You pulled one MINOR exaggeration from my posts and pretend this is the sum total of my argument. Very slick.
No state may violate the Constitution - it's written that way as I quoted earlier.
Duh. I will repeat and clarify. It is CONSTITUTIONAL for a 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. Just because you do not agree does not make it unconstitutional.
... 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.
You are comparing apples with oranges, as usual.
The position of a state government requiring creationism in school is an usurpation.
More nonsense.
You have since backed off of that position ...
No I did not.
... but allowing the states to regulate or establish a state religion is also a violation.
No, it is not.
... there is a problem with making a specific religious view a law or a government giving legal preference to a religion or denomination.
There may or may not be a problem with it, but it is only prohibited at the federal level.
Georgia requiring that state biology courses be taught according to the "First Church of the Risen" - big conflict.
A stupid requirement, but no conflict.
Jefferson as a federal government source is corrupt by your positions and thus not to be trusted.
More nonsense. Jefferson expressed exactly my position in the part you snipped and erroneously labeled the Danbury letter.
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:...
Virginia had established "freedom of religion" within their state Bill of Rights, so the proposed law (you partially quoted) would have been a usurpation. Madison appropriately argued against usurpation. If Virginia had no such provision for freedom of religion in their Bill of Rights the proposed 1785 bill would not have been a usurpation. There was nothing in the upcoming Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights that would have changed any of this at the state level.
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.
You are correct with respect to the views of Madison. Both he and Jefferson held that view. But neither was stupid. A proposal for a secular government at all levels would have failed. Therefore there were no restrictions on the states in the original Constitution, nor in the later Bill of Rights (in both there was no power given to the federal government over religion). For example, in his initial proposal for a Bill of Rights, Madison wrote, ". . . nor shall any national religion be established". The adopted version of the religious clause of the 1st Amendment states the same thing, though worded differently. It is important that you understand that the Bill of Rights gave us no rights. It only clarified our existing rights, some specifically and some generally.
BTW, Madison also opposed the appointment of chaplains to the two house of congress, and to religious proclamations such as Washington's Thanksgiving Day proclamation. It it obvious that some of Madison's views (as with Jefferson) did not have anywhere near majority support.
George Washington's views, on the other hand, had immense support. And he made no bones about the importance of religion, stating in his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens". In other words, according to George Washington, you are unpatriotic if you subvert religion. And was Washington talking about any old religion? Absolutely not. In the same address it is written, "With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles".