Yes, but I don't think we will ever know that for certain. The offical action of Madison in vetoing the gift of land to a church is one indication. Even better is the record of deliberations of the Constitutional Convention. But ultimately the text and the accumulated interpretations of it are our guide.
Why did SCOTUS expand the definition of the word establishment, causing us all this trouble?
What proof do you have that they did?
What was the extra problem they were trying to solve? Had the modern age changed the equation somehow?
They were addressing a case that came before them. The State of New Jersey was providing free busing for school children at all schools: public, private, and parochial. Somebody, perhaps an anti-Catholic, took exception to the state paying for transporting kids to a religious school and sued the state to have it stopped. SCOTUS decided that providing busing for all children regardless of type of school did not represent an establishment of religion because it did not meet any of the elements in the paragraph we've been discussing. Do you disagree with their decision or only with the logic behind it?
Later courts found the Everson standard to be perhaps too broad and Warren Burger formulated the Lemon Test (1971), which is the current primary standard. The Marsh decision (1983) states an exception which allows for traditional and historical "ceremonial recognitions of God." While Everson was precedent setting, it is no longer the operative interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
The major lasting effect of Everson was not a redefinition of the word "establishment," it was the clear extension of the 1st Amendment to the states, via the 14th Amendment. Even Clarence Thomas, a soldly conservative justice accepts that interpration, with reservations.
Whatever the textual and historical merits of incorporating the Establishment Clause, I can accept that the Fourteenth Amendment protects religious liberty rights.The 14h Amendment is interpeted as extending all the Bill of Rights to the states. If you don't think that the 1st Amendment should apply to states then what about the others? Should states be permitted to search and sieze your property without due process? Should they be able to compel self-incrimination? Should they be able to regulate arms? (Oops, stupid question.)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
I don't know what you mean by a "legitimate Constitutional movement of originalists." You probably mean a "legitimate movement of Constitutional originalists." Even so, I don't see any proof that the Founders would have interpreted the Establishment Clause, as modified by the Fourteenth Amendment, any differently then Judge Thompson did.
to protect state and individual rights from a national govt - religion ---
that WALL has been breeched - demolished by liberals !
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any ... national ecclesiastical establishment --- which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage * * of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Check out the link above !
Old wall constitutionalist ... keep govt out ---
new wall constitutionalist (( sharia )) --- keep God out !
... * * ... guess who --- rag heads - liberals !
There is a limit to how much you can make out of uncertainty. It is not an excuse to insert a brand spanking new interpetation. Also, you have discounted the actions of officials, citing the rough-and-tumble, as indicative of their intentions with regard to Establishment when I bring them up. But here you are construing something from Madison's action.
Be that as it may, there is a real smoking gun in the accumulated interpretations. The 1947 court appears to have made a blind jump, chronicled by Rehnquist in a dissent, to which a majority member responded (paraphrasing) "Establishment meant something different at that time" (that time being the Framing). When will it be time to correct errors in the accumulated interpretations?
What was the extra problem they were trying to solve?Had the modern age changed the equation somehow?-NutCrackerBoy.
They were addressing a case that came before them
They could have ducked the case. I don't think I am out of line in asserting that they took the opportunity to create doctrine.
While Everson was precedent setting, it is no longer the operative interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Then why did you quote that "key passage?"
Look, I understand and appreciate your being precise. I am learning a lot from you, but I am uncomfortable with your seeming evasion of the seemingly obvious truth that there is no basis in original intent, even after correcting for differences like the 14th Amendment, for the current interpretation of the word "establishment."
Even Clarence Thomas, a [solidly] conservative justice accepts that interpration [extension of the 1st Amendment to the states, via the 14th Amendment], with reservations.
I am hoping for 12 consecutive years of appointments from Republican administrations. I am also hoping for a Chief Justice Clarence Thomas.
Of course that extension was key. Without Incorporation of the Establishment clause, we wouldn't even be discussing this. I am not completely comfortable with the way SCOTUS interprets states rights regarding A1, A10, and A14. But the real source of the tyranny (as I call it) is the radical interpretation of the word Establishment, not the incorporation per se.