Well... I agreed it does not explicitly but it does implicitly. The equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment applies the establishment clause to the states in addition to congress. Look you can argue with me about this all you want, but this is what every court in the US goes by. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas seemed to have no trouble applying due process and equal protection clauses to justify the remedy in Bush v. Gore in 2000. I did not hear a peep out of Rush or Hannity on State's rights then, did you?
It is the same thing with the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Does it exist anywhere in the US Constitution? Nope... but the Supreme Court explicitly held that it does via the due process clause.
Look many cases are decided in the US by interpretation of the law, especially when it is a constitutional case. That is how it has worked here and Great Britain for a very long time.
Anyway thanks for not wanting to convert my children. If I seemed angry, then you were correct.
Well, I answered you truthfully. You are now showing your deceit. End of exchange.
P.S. beyond a reasonable doubt is common law. And, no, not every judge agrees with what you stated about reading things into the constitution. That is why we have controversy at every conservative judicial nomination. There is no controversy over whether women have a right to vote. That is indisputably in the Constitution.