not exactly. a victory would have been for the court to disallow use to any religious organization at all - in accordance with the separation of church and state - but this (a settlement to allow equal use to all) is an acceptable compromise, imo.
We collectively decide what the constitution means.
Mostly the Supreme Court decides, of course, but we can vote for presidents that will pick justices that agree with us and congressional reps that will impeach justices that don’t.
Congress shall make no law respecting can be interpreted in different ways. Every part of the constitution is open to interpretation.
I’m sorry, but if your argument is that the constitution means everything and nothing depending on “us collectively” than you don’t really understand it.
Another victory!
not exactly. a victory would have been for the court to disallow use to any religious organization at all - in accordance with the separation of church and state - but this (a settlement to allow equal use to all) is an acceptable compromise, imo.
Eh, not quite what that means. Separation of church and state means no church in government decisions. It doesn’t mean “no church in the building.”
Says you. It could absolutely mean the latter. We decide that.
See: France as a counterexample.
It’s pretty clear in the constitution what it means.
We collectively decide what the constitution means.
Mostly the Supreme Court decides, of course, but we can vote for presidents that will pick justices that agree with us and congressional reps that will impeach justices that don’t.
Congress shall make no law respecting can be interpreted in different ways. Every part of the constitution is open to interpretation.
I’m sorry, but if your argument is that the constitution means everything and nothing depending on “us collectively” than you don’t really understand it.
That shows your ignorance.