Replies

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be applied to the establlishment clause...

Possibly. Kind of moot - it applies now.

I still believe that Lemon will be revisited - it's rather sloppy, which makes it potentially kind of draconian in the wrong hands. But I don't think that whatever replaces it will go far enough to protect what Judge Moore wants to do. Then again, who knows how things will turn out 40 years from now?

Then again, who knows how things will turn out 40 years from now?

Certainly, Reynolds and Everson after it used a President's letters as precedent. President's don't make laws, Jefferson did not author the First Amendment and Presidents letters to Baptist Ministers are not precedent for SCOTUS to interpret the law.

However, under that scenario President Bush's letter's to various ministers on faith based institutions could one day be cited as precedent for all sorts of mischief that would light the tails of the left and libertarian right's tails on fire.

Sad to sy, I don't have 40 years left but I'll chuckle now just in case it bears fruit.

The 14th amendment point may be moot but it is illustrative of how judges make law and "Walls Of Separation" based on whole cloth. Justice Black was a good wall maker but as a jurist swron to uphold the Constitution and the intent of it's authors, he sucked.

Amend it, don't bend it.

Sorry but I was listening to Reverend Al the other day. Couldn't resist.

I still believe that Lemon will be revisited - it's rather sloppy, which makes it potentially kind of draconian in the wrong hands. But I don't think that whatever replaces it will go far enough to protect what Judge Moore wants to do.

A point of agreement at last. I'd go further of course: Lemon is wrong. The 'intention' part of the test raises a *host* of problems, many of which we've discussed (Burkhas in or out). The other parts are wholly subject to abuse as you mention. But the key is - the Test rally has no basis in the Establishment clause text, in the original intent, or in the understanding of establishment of religion as held by the founders and Judges for the first 150 years of the nation's life. It's a Judicial act of legislation.

As for the 10 Commandment display, it should be permissible under any Judicial regimen that properly allows a place for official recognition in voluntary, open ways of religious sentiment or religious heritage on our culture. It's a monument of historical significance and does not coerce or require any set of beliefs by citizens. It should be as permissible as "under God" in the pledge.

I like the Scalia quote because he is basically accussing the court of overruling Lemon but keeping it around as a cudgel. It should and someday WILL be overturned. If it's not overturned, I fear for the Republic!