Now I know you are trying to throw chum in the waters! :D

When an amendment has the words "the right of the people", then it is generally accepted to mean just that , the people. As in "We the People....", A fact loss on the antigunners and the 2nd Amendment.

(Go see Stick II)

I'm not following you. The way I read it, the whole Bill of Rights is directed against the government trampling the folks. Not to allow on folk to say whatever he wants to another folk.

This is correct. Absent "state action," there is no constitutional claim to be made. I can kick you out of my house if you call John Wayne a 'mo, for example. :D

Right. So if I, as an individual not an agent of the government making a law, tell somebody to shut up, I am in no way violating their right to free speech.

Correct.

Good. Now that we've established I am correct on freedom of speech.

I say in the Alabama there was no violation by the judge. Now, if Congress had passed a law saying "There will be a statue of the 10 Commandments in every courthouse in America, then there is a violation.

Now I interpret this to mean the gov't shall not establish a state religion. It is not regulating when or where a person can worship according to their individual religion.

Alabama was wrong IMHO.

You are ignoring the 14th Amendment.

How so?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxiv.html

Yeah, I read it. How was the judge violating it and which part?

He put a religious display up in a state courthouse. You can't do that.

Where did you get that from RL? I did not see that in there anywhere.

How do you get that out of the 14th?

The 14th amendment applies the first ten to the states. There is a bunch of case law on this, but it is 1st amendment case law for the most part.