Where did you receive you education in Constitutional Law?
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition".
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1 Wheat 304); Gibbons v. Ogden, (9 Wheat 419); Brown v. Maryland, (12 Wheat 419); Craig v. Missouri, (4 Pet 10); Tennessee v. Whitworth, (117 U.S. 139); Lake County v. Rollins, (130 U.S. 662); Hodges v. United States, (203 U.S. 1); Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., (268 U.S. 628); The Pocket Veto Case, (279 U.S. 655)."It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power."
Cook vs. Iverson, (122 N.M. 251)."It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;..."
Marbury v. Madison, (5 U.S. 137)The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.
South Carolina v. United States, (199 U.S. 437)."To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation."
Wright v. United States, (302 U.S. 583).
Not much room for doubt - the Constitution means what IT plainly states, it is not for a Justice to find some arcane, obscure meaning.
So what did the founders mean when thay added the 1st Amendment - the separation of Chuch and state? Or did they mean that the government could not institute a national/state religion as was the case in England? From Commentaries on the Constitution by Justice Joseph Story, (1833)
§ 1867. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines.
§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
§ 1871. The real object of the amendment 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 an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."
Again, not much room for doubt. But some would argue that the founders meant to separate (excise?) religion from government. If that was the case consider this: the first official act of the Continental Congress, 6 Sep 1774, was a call for prayer. Rev. Jacob Duche offered the prayer. I can post it if you like, along with hundreds of quotes related to the subject. Far from separating religion from politics and government, the two are intertwined even today.
Continued ...