[rmlew]

Given that the same Congress which voted on the First Ammendment created had bibles printed, authorised chaplains, held weekly services in Congress, and declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate teh Bill of Rights, I believe that they had a very differnt intention with the First Ammendment than the one enshrined after 1954.

The 1878 decision was not used as teh basis of driving religion from the public square. The 1954 reading was. It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.

I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Given that the same Congress which voted on the First Amendment created had bibles printed, authorised chaplains, held weekly services in Congress, and declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate the Bill of Rights, I believe that they had a very different intention with the First Amendment than the one enshrined after 1954.

It has certainly been refined, but I think it is the same intention. Our visions of the Fourth and Fifth and Tenth amendments have also been refined. That is what two hundred and ten years of case law and history will do.

And Congress still has chaplains. And we have a Thanksgiving Day every year. And we subsidize the printing of Bibles by tax-exempt churches.

It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.

Are you saying that the Reynolds Court was correct to use the Danbury Baptist letter as a guide? But that the 1954 court was wrong to use Reynolds as a precedent? And what 1954 case are you referring to?

I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.

Ever since Marbury Congresses, Presidents, and the rest of the government have all acknowldeged the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. Even inferior courts make constitutional decisions, following USSC precedents.

The Constitution bases our government on a system of checks and balances. There are plenty of checks of judicial power. If Congress and the President are in agreement that they dispute a Supreme Court interpretation they have at least four options:
1. Pass a new amendment (with the consent of the states).
2. Wait for the old justices to retire and appoint more agreeable ones.
3. Expand the number of justices on the court and appoint more agreeable ones.
4. Explicitly change the jurisdiction of the court.