Despite what the cliché is, the 1st Amendment does indicate that there is a separation of State and Church, not the other way around. I was thinking about this yesterday as I heard the ACLU was suing a government entity in LA (Lower Alabama for those not in the state and familiar with the nomenclature) because they are offering the ability to either go to jail and pay a fine or to attend a church of their choice (56 churches signed on to join the program) for one year and have their records expunged. They of course are suing on the grounds that they speak the cliché rather than the way it is written. Now, here's the $25,000 question. The First Amendment to the Constitution says the Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. In this regard, it was a local county or city that created this option. It is not an establishment of religion but an option to eliminate someone taking up space (and costing them) in their jails. Taken in conjunction with the 10th Amendment means that this entire issue is out of line. The Constitution says that Congress cannot make a law about a church (it didn't) and that any powers not designated as belonging to the federal government belong to the State. Doesn't that by definition mean that if the federal government cannot make a law on a subject that the State government gets the ability?

Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere, and all that jazz.