How is preventing the government from doing something tyranny? Tyranny is when the government does too much. In this case the federal courts are preventing a state court from maintiaing a religous monument. Those federal courts are doing exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do, prevent unnecessary government intrusion in the lives of the citizens.
I'm not sure what you mean by "(this is the BY WHAT LAW?)." Are you quoting Romans 3:27?
...does it not create an insurmountable problem if the mandate is to cleanse each and every expenditure of religious "taint"?
No, not insurmountable. If legistlators, executives, and judges act in good faith there should not be much effort at all. The Bill of Rights does not prevent citizens from doing anything; it only prevents government agents from doing things.
As I pointed out in another post, historically there is no problem with federal or state governments acting in a way to generally promote the institutions of religion. That historical truth was radically attacked in 1947.
I disagree. There were plenty of problems with the government promoting religious institutions. They, like other violations of civil rights, simply did not get adjudicated in the 19th Century. From the very earliest Establishment cases that came before the Supreme Court they have followed a fairly consistent interpretation.
"But I'd argue that is is a difference of degree rather than kind."
Careful, slippery slope (argument).
So how are the two different?
Easy. The federal judiciary is preventing the state government from serving its citizens. Surely the definition of tyranny can cover that case.
I'm not sure what you mean by "(this is the BY WHAT LAW?).
I am keeping the focus on the real issue, which is by what law - not fabricated court doctrine - can the federal court order the removal of this monument?
If legistlators, executives, and judges act in good faith there should not be much effort at all [to remove all religious "taint" from every government expenditure].
Welcome to a world engineered by the ACLU. People can be taxed at 50% or more, this money turned over to any private charity as long as its members have no avowed faith. Real good result. (/sarcasm off)
From the very earliest Establishment cases that came before the Supreme Court they have followed a fairly consistent interpretation.
If that is true, then the only Establishment cases came after they radically changed the definition of "establishment". That does not change the actual and original meaning of the first amendment.