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".
Meaning you have no basis for response.
You pulled one MINOR exaggeration from my posts and pretend this is the sum total of my argument. Very slick.
Minor?
"We need to move all this case law from the halls to the landfills."
"The federal judiciary claimed it did when it usurped power from the states."
"precedent is a dangerous tool in the hands of a tyrannical judiciary."
"the opinion of another judge(s) who is likely to be corrupt."
"the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court"
It was your central point, as you agreed in #584. For the history of the nation and before, judges are nasty, bad corrupt people and shouldn't be listened to in terms of constitutional law - especially the Supreme Court.
This, "in a nutshell" as you put it was your counter argument to the clauses from the Constitution that state the federal constitution is above state constitutions and laws and apply to all states.
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.
As the Federal Constitution applies to the state, the state must follow. Thus, a state may not establish a religion. I know it goes against your ideal of a theocratic government but that is the way it is stated.
[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.
Not at all, if as you argue, a state can invalidate the First Amendment, it can invalidate any part under the guise of 'states' rights.'
Fortunately, some of the states' sovereignty was given to the Union and their power is also limited by the same document that limits the Federal government.
[You have since backed off of that position ...] No I did not
The you are reneging on your statement?:
Post #475 - I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution, and I never have been.
The rest of your post is more of the same insistence that the Constitution does not apply to the states - which has been shown incorrect.
The closure from Washington to which you quoted "Religion and morality are indispensable supports" is true - but those supports are in the private sector. They have a purpose there - but not in state law.