Originally Posted by Marcus1124

What Mick is so ham-handedly referring to (casting ever greater doubt as if any remained on the absurdity of his self-pronounced knowledge of constitutional history and law) is that under the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers (one would have thought someone sooooooo knowledgable as Mick pretends to be would know the term for what he is trying to talk about) the Federal Government has no powers not explicity enumerated to it under the constitution.

This doctrine is absolutely correct, but when applied to the Bill of Rights, and most of the relevant case-law, it ignores several key facts:
1. The Federal Government DOES have plenary police powers traditionally associated with sovereign states over Federal Property and Territories (such as the District of Columbia and other territories)
2. The Doctrine of Enumerated Powers with regard to understanding the Bill of Rights applies ONLY to FEDERAL actions, and 99.99999% of the cases before the court, particularly with regard to the Establishment Clause are based on STATE action, not Federal.

Neither the Establishment Clause, or the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers proscribes the display of the Ten Commandments in front of a state or local courthouse. It doesn't even proscribe it in Federal buildings, as it is not "establishment", and is really nothing more than decorative, it is not a legal exercise of "power" anymore than a decision to put carpeting on the floor and paintings on the wall. But, as said, even if the constitution DID preclude or proscribe the Federal Government from doing so, it says nothing about the states.