[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.

[rmlew]

I wrote

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.

Looking responded
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.
1. The Supreme Court has refined the Consitution into meaning what ever current leftist orthodoxy demands. Read origional intent and early decision and then compare these to the novel approaches (read pure revisionism) of current decisions.
2. Teh 10th Ammendment has, until last year, been ignored since FDR bullied teh court into submitting to socialism.
3. CAse law has no Constitutional standing. It is a guild practice that has been illegally grafted onto Constituional studies. There is no requirement for a Supreme Court to acknowlege any previous decision.

And Congress still has chaplains.
The wall of seperateion is damn pourous by intent.

And we have a Thanksgiving Day every year.
Which is entirely different than having a special day to thang God for a specific event. What we hVe to day is a secular holiday commemorating the Puritan colonization.

And we subsidize the printing of Bibles by tax-exempt churches.
Compare taht to Congress authorising funds to purchase bibles and proselytise to the Indians!

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 am saying that the Court in the Reynolds case did not misuse the Danbury letter, which is but one solitary opinion, to reshape the Consitution to their agenda. In the 1950's teh USSC did so when it banned teacher-led prayer in Public Schools.

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.
Given that the Senate came within a few votes of convicting Justice Chase because of this decision, I must disagree.
At any rate, the fairlure of the government to address an assault on the Constitution does not validate it.
The USSC was supposed to be the weakest branch (read teh Federalist Papers) instead the judicial system has become an oligarchy.