So? First, there is the small matter of the 14th Amendment. Second, who gives a damn. I'm not an original intent theorist. I am a textualist with a strong respect for stare decisis where reasonable interpretations are made. I don't care what those that passed the act intended, I'm not going to worry about their feelings, I care about what they did; what they wrote.
Seems to me either you or they don't understand what the 1st Amendment menas. I'll go with the Founding Fathers, thank you very much.
No, I understand both. You just have a very shallow and ill-informed notion of legal thinking.
Huh? I was referring to FEDERALLY-sponsored displays and/or aids to religion, so I hardly see how the 14th Amendment is relevant here.
Second, who gives a damn. I'm not an original intent theorist. I am a textualist
Okay, so find the Lemon test in the Constitution. Not there? Didn't think so.
with a strong respect for stare decisis where reasonable interpretations are made.
Then you should respect the way it was interpreted for the 170 some odd years prior to the Lemon decision. But I suspect, like a liberal, you ignore stare deciscis when unless it's a precedent you like.
I don't care what those that passed the act intended, I'm not going to worry about their feelings, I care about what they did;
Do you care that the founders actually created the office of Congressional chaplain? Do you care that they let the Capitol building to be used as a Church free of charge? Do you care that they passed a law mandating that Federal territories encourage religion? Do you care that Washington added "so help me God" to the oath of office?
No, like a liberal, you ignore all precedent you don't like.
No, I understand both. You just have a very shallow and ill-informed notion of legal thinking.
The pot calls the kettle black.