:|The main problem at this point is not a State establishing a religion
:|because, contrary to what atheists, separationists, anti-religious
:|expression activist justices and the liberal media want everybody to
:|believe, basic reading skills and common sense tell us that the 1st
:|Amendment's prohibitions on government power apply only to the federal
:|government and not to the States. Since no amendment explicitly
:|prohibits the power to legislate religion to the States like the 1st
:|explicitly prohibits Congress (federal government; aka United States)
:|from having this power, the 10th automatically reserved the power to
:|legislate religion to the States. After all, the States had this power
:|before the federal government and its Constitution even existed and
:|reserved this power uniquely for themselves when they established the
:|federal government and its Constitution.
:|
:|The real problem is the use of tax dollars for the 10 Commandments
:|display. Certain taxpaying factions, particularly atheists, have
:|reasonable grounds for objecting to the way that their tax dollars are
:|being spent:
:|
:|"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
:|of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
:|--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
:|> Consider now that the Supreme Court rules that the act of the State
:|> legislature is UnConstitutional because it establishes religion in the
:|> State, and the the monument must be removed from the Statehouse.
:|
:|You are ignoring that because of the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court
:|has no basis, other than dishonest, politically correct interpretation
:|of the 1st and 14th Amendments, for claiming that the State violated
:|the Constitution just because it established a religion. Again, the
:|States had the power to legislate religion before the federal
:|government and its Constitution even existed and reserved the power to
:|legislate religion uniquely to themselves as evidenced by the wording
:|of the 1st and 10th Amendments.
:|
:|The only basis for anybody to complain about the 10 Commandments
:|display is because 14th protected personal federal rights were possibly
:|violated because of the use of tax money to pay for the display; the
:|establishment clause has nothing to do with this.
:|
:|"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
:|Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
:|States respectively, or to the people."
:|
:|When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
:|reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
:|religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
:|only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
:|separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
:|Court's scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
:|Everson opinion:
:|
:|"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 entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing 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 from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
:|Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
:|participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
:|vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
:|of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
:|Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
:|164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
:|
:|You're barking up the wrong tree. The Justices should be impeached for
:|breaking their oath to defend the Constitution.
:|
:|>
:|> -------------------