By her standard she shouldn't have a vote or a voice.

So in not upholding the tenets of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court is, in fact, amending the Constitution.

It’s going to be so gratifying and almost worth having the Supreme Court undermine the Bill of Rights to watch outrage when the American taxpayer is going to have to fund a yeshiva or *gasp* a school built in connection with a mosque.

What's fair for one is fair for all. That's always been the rub with this. Seems your comment has nothing to do with the OP or my comment, like it was just something you had in your pocket waiting on a chance to throw it out there.

ACB says that it’s not up to her to update the Constitution. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious institutions flies in the face of the First Amendment, thereby “updating” the US Constitution.

If you can’t see that’s directly relevant to both the OP and your response, you either lack reading comprehension or are being willfully ignorant.

Both are plausible.

I don't defer to ABC for Constitutional law advice as is the practice of some (what a dumb way to begin a comment). So long as other religious organizations aren't prohibited from the same type of funding there is no problem with the Constitutionality of it. As far as "updating the Constitution" the court has been involved with every update thus far, so that lack of understanding on your part is telling.

The OP uses a quote from ABC and you respond with a quote from ABC but responding to that quote has nothing to do with either quote or ABC?

Alrighty then.

It’s also interesting to say you wouldn’t defer to a supposedly-qualified Supreme Court justice for advice on Constitutional law. If you can’t defer to a justice, who can you defer to? Do you get it from the mailman? Your pastor? Boy, I hope it’s not from someone in the politics stream.

A far as the rest of it goes, taxpayer funds should never be funding religious institutions. It blurs the lines between church and state…you know, the same idea that the guy who wrote the Constitution really pushed for.

But what did Thomas Jefferson know anyway?

Thomas Jefferson never abdicated a total separation of church and state. If you have done any reading in The Federalist papers you would know that. His position was very clear. He just didn't want the State advocating any one religion over the others. If you would spend more time actually reading Thomas Jefferson's words and less time reading liberal biased words about Thomas Jefferson, these things would be a little more clear to you, and you wouldn't have such a skewed interpretation of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson 100% supported a total separation of church and state, as did James Madison, one of the Federalist Papers’ authors. Madison had a long and documented history advocating as such.

Please cite specific passages.

During the time period of his famous letter to the "Baptists" the House of Representatives was holding church services, which he attended. He actually attended a service two days after the writing of his famous letter in which everyone tries to hang on to one or two sentences. He didn't address State sponsored religion, but was referring to Federal laws that restricted or promoted religion. Funding of organizations wasn't a topic. Madison was against the same things, noting that several denominations of Christianity were attempting to have laws written favoring their denomination over others, thereby, infringing on people's conscience. There is absolutely nothing I disagree with in his or Jefferson's writings. Problem is, y'all want to add to their writings rather than let them speak for themselves. The early practices of the Federal government, prayers in the House, the posting of Scripture in the Halls of Justice, etc, a long list of religious promotions in every aspect of our lives, didn't involve writing laws or promoting one denomination over another, but promoted the free exercise of one's religious convictions without government interference. That all this God stuff was surrounding every aspect of our government is proof enough that they didn't call for the wall in the way you describe it, but one a bit different.

That’s not citing a source, but rather describing an action. That’s not really the same thing.

No one questions the Founding Fathers were religious men or men of faith, but they knew the implications of opening the door to a government becoming financially entangled with any or all religious institutions (the Vatican and the Church of England immediately come to mind, both being relevant to the US at the time). The Founding Fathers surely also recognized the implications of forcing a Protestant’s tax dollars to fund and Catholic institution and vice versa. We live in a much bigger world now. Apply that logic across the board.

James Madison’s own words: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-03-02-0233

You did not actually address what she FACTUALLY said. If she indeed said it. You are attempting to side step her massive hypocrisy and subjective interpatations of The Constitution.

Or in other words. The Constitution is GREAT until it gets in the way of what you want

I'm answering someone else's question, not pandering to confused individuals that can't get their pronouns correct. The Constitution is great so long as it is allowed to speak, and is diminished when people in robes deconstruct the language in such a way that their interpretation in no way reflects the thoughts or desires of the original authors...things that can be assessed by a thorough reading of their positions outlined in The Federalist Papers.