Government displays protesting against the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence

[Steve Klemetti]

Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>	Say that a City Council mounts a display of historical American
>documents that have religious themes -- say, the ones cited in Justice
>Scalia's McCreary dissent -- with an introductory posting that says:
>"The City Council of [name] condemns the Supreme Court's decisions
>striking down the display of religious symbols in government buildings.
>These decisions go against centuries of American tradition, as well as
>against the views of the Framers.  Throughout American history,
>governmental bodies have repeatedly acknowledged God, and should
>continue to be free to do so.  We post just a few samples of such
>acknowledges of God, which we believe should be constitutional."  And
>let's say that this indeed sincerely reflects the City Council members'
>purpose -- not implausible, since I suspect that quite a few government
>officials would like to do this sort of thing.
>
>	Would this be constitutional?  Should it be?  Rereading McCreary
>County led me to think that this sort of purpose is part of what was
>going on as to the second and third displays, though I would think only
>a part.  I'm curious what would happen if this was really the
>government's purpose.
>
>	
>  
>
I don't think it would be because it sounds treasonous or something like 
that.  When one
governing body goes against the orders of a higher court, then that 
first body is violating
the constitution by that action.  If the people or these government 
bodies want to add religious
symbols, they can amend the constitution to allow it, not defy the 
interpretation of it by the
body that the constitution designates.