Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I don't see the connection. It's the same thing as saying "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and obviously any such religious test would require that. But there was no test or Federal government position involved with the Texas Graduation Ceremony so how does that give the Feds the right to inhibit those folks free expression?

He's saying its indicative of the position of the framers on religion. Not necessarily that it's applicable, but evidence for the fact that they wanted to keep religion and government separate.

It's not necessarily a bright line between the Federal and local governments, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

He's saying its indicative of the position of the framers on religion.

Not quite Mookie. It is indicative of the position of one of the framers, not the framers as a group. There were those in Congress who voted against the 21st amendment too. That does not make their beliefs the law of the land.

Not necessarily that it's applicable, but evidence for the fact that they wanted to keep religion and government separate.

Again with the "they". Madison was an individual, not a group. We just cannot go by the recorded thoughts of one, two or even several individuals no matter how prestigious they were. We must only go by what the majority of the group decided.

Congress making no laws about the establishment and specifically not being able to prohibit the free exercise of religion was all that the majority agreed to and nothing more. That was all the states ratified and nothing more.

If you want to amplify that meaning to include things not in the original then fine. The proper way to do it is to convene a Constitutional Convention and pass another amendment. Any other way is simply unconstitutional.