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.
My mistake, I got this thread mixed up with another, where we were dealing with a state actor.
Okay, so find the Lemon test in the Constitution. Not there? Didn't think so.
The test is the way to determine what, exactly, the text means. It need not be in the text itself if it is a reasonable reflection of the text. (And I think it is mostly right, but not perfect.)
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 care for judicial precedent. Legislative practice is mostly irrelevant to my reasoning. The Congress could simply have been acting unconstitutionally for 200+ years. Lemon, itself, was an attempt to codify those judicial precedents. Not perfect, but it was mostly right.
...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, I don't care at all. The question isn't whether the legislative or executive branches have acted a certain way, but whether acting a certain way (even for 200+ years) goes against the Constitution. And I think that there is a strong case for the notion that Ceremonial Deism is incompatible with a prohibition against laws respecting the establishment of religion.