It has also been ruled that property can be taken away from a citizen and given to a private developer, in pure, unadulterated violation of the Fifth Amendment. Judges are human and are subject to the whims of lobbyists or their own prejudices. Just because something has been "ruled" one way or the other does not make the ruling right nor proper. In spite of the fact that the Constitution was written in plain English, people still try to say that what was written is not what was actually meant. The First Amendment says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" And yet people, including intelligent judges, point to that to say that the people of a township cannot place a Nativity on the courthouse grounds. Despite the fact that Congress has no say, and never made a law, one way or the other. They call it tacit approval. By allowing it to happen, they say. Then Congress might as well had made a law. Well, it works both ways, bunkie. The First Amendment says that Congress can make no law forbidding the free excersise of religion. So, no one can force a township to remove a Nativity from the courthouse grounds either. If they did, then that would be tacit approval of a law forbidding the free excersise of religion. A big no-no as per the First Amendment.
