Prokopton: Maybe you want to read "Everson v. Board of Education".
Uh, Everson v. Board of Education is the Constitution???
It is precisely why states continued to have state religions well after the Constitution was ratified. The colonies were basically established by certain denominations and established what the religion was to be in that particular colony. They did not give that up when they wrote the Constitution. They wrote the Constitution so that the FEDERAL government could never say one particular denomination was the official, national religion and therefore have preference over the others.
It is an example of states having abilities the federal government did not. As the federal government derives its power from the states, that means the federal government may do certain things now on behalf of the states, but can’t force it’s own limitations on powers the states never gave it in the first place.
What happened is over time more and more people moved around the states and emigrated here and not everyone was just living in states where their denomination was the state religion, and this gradually was done away with as the state religious denominations grew less homogenous.
Everson v. Board of Education is the case where SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to encompass state action in the establishment clause:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
You might not like it, but this interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land. Scotus's interpretation states that the Second Amendment applies to self-defense, even though it is not actually stated in the Constitution. If you asked me does the Constitution provide for the ownership of arms for self defense, I would say yes. If you asked me does the Constitution prevent a state from establishing a religion, I would say yes.