Why do you make things more complicated than they need to be?
Not even knowing who Thomas Jefferson was or what his ideas were, basic reading skills indicate that only Congress can violate the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment concerning making certain laws. Whenever anybody other than Congress "violates" the bogus constitutional principle of c&s separation, the only thing is that is actually getting violated is "laws" that anti-religious expression judges are unlawfully legislating from the bench.
BTW, what exactly is your interpretation of the religion clauses? Does your interpretation prohibit the President of the United State from issuing executive proclamations which contain recommendations of a religious nature or which contain suggestions that pertain to "the duty which we owe to our Creator?"
Although Presidents Washington and Adams, for example, did nothing unconstitutional by issuing proclamations recognizing "Thanksgiving and Prayer," or whatever religious related special day that was, such actions confused the division of powers of the 1st and 10th Amendments.
I use Jefferson's remark to Rev. Miller as the best generalization of the intentions of the Founders concerning the religious aspects of the 1st A.. Jefferson indicated simply that no power to address religious issues has been delegated to the general (federal) government.
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7Take President Eisenhower's "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. I think that Eisenhower confused the separation of federal and state powers by using federal power to include "under God" in the Pledge similarly as Washington and Adams had done with proclaiming "Thanksgiving and Prayer".
I think that Eisenhower's good intentions with the Pledge would be beyond reproach today if he had instead encouraged the state governments to use their 10th A. power to address religious issues to make state laws which included "under God" in the Pledge.
>>>Although Presidents Washington and Adams, for example, did nothing unconstitutional by issuing proclamations recognizing "Thanksgiving and Prayer," or whatever religious related special day that was, such actions confused the division of powers of the 1st and 10th Amendments . . . I think that Eisenhower's good intentions with the Pledge would be beyond reproach today if he had instead encouraged the state governments to use their 10th A. power to address religious issues to make state laws which included "under God" in the Pledge.<<<
I disagree. The purpose of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment was not to prohibit all support of Christianity by the federal government; but rather to ensure that the federal government did not support one Christian denomination over another. Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" discusses this matter.