Your novel interpretation of the constitution is not shared by everyone, sorry. The constitution allowed exactly that and more at its inception, therefore it didn't express what you seem to think it did. Also, in spite of your uninformed characterization of ID as religion, it is not. You either say that because you are repeating what you've heard, or you are intentionally misinforming. ID proposed the idea that evolution as presented by Darwin does not answer all the questions. There are many like me that are not reliegious and are not creationists that are not threatened by discussion of that possibility.
Are you standing by that as your impression of the complete definition of ID?
Read and weep:
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," William Dembski, one of the movement's chief proponents, said in a 1999 interview in Touchstone, a Christian magazine that Forrest cited in her testimony.[emphasis added]
What was that you were saying about being "uninformed..."?