Constitutional revisionism

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

If "Establishment of Religion" has a known and definite meaning in the  
context of its adoption with the rest of what became the First Amendment, why do  
we have to "get real" in a way that inflates new meanings, new limitations, and 
 new disparagements of religion into that text?
 
As a strict constructionist, I am confident that Establishment of Religion  
had quite a precise meaning and would not be understood by its drafters as  
limiting Bible week proclamations, the erection of Decalogue monuments, or the  
imprecations of a prosecutor in the sentencing phase of scriptural admonitions  
against murder and the like.  All that extra baggage is the consequence of  
the Justices, like naughty baggage handlers at the airport, opening the First  
Amendment, dumping out its clear and precise meaning, and then repacking  
amendatory luggage with preferred, seccularizing articles.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050720/b860f194/attachment.htm