[general_re]

Being as legally well-read as you are, I'm sure you're aware of the distinction between holding and dictum, no?

Sure. You can pick up with Lemon v Kurtzman for the last piece of the puzzle, if you like.

Still no mention of the 14th amendment therein

Read the opinion he was concurring with, then - I suggested Brennan simply as an overview of the issues involved. The context was a public school's requirement for the reading and recitation of Bible verses at the beginning of each school day. Not to spoil the surprise of reading it or anything, but how do you think they presumed that the establishment clause applied to a local Pennsylvania school district? ;)

[WOSG]

But be aware in reading Brennan's opinions that Brennan was a Liberal shill for the extremist agenda of the ACLU.

Sadly, in this corner of Constitutional jurisprudence, that extremism as embodied in Lemon has triumphed in court to give us these awful and antiConstitutional rulings.

[inquest]

The only mention in Lemon of the 14th amendment was right at the beginning: "Both statutes are challenged as violative of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Absolutely nothing beyond that throughout the entire ruling that makes any reference to it at all. Abington makes a few more references to it, but nothing beyond the level of "their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments". In short, neither of these two rulings shed any light whatsoever on how Moore's action abridged anyone's privileges or immunities, deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied anybody the equal protection of the laws.