Enough already!

Let me see if I have this correct.

Public display of the Ten Commandments in the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., is OK, but displaying those same commandments in public or in government buildings in Indiana is not OK, right?

So far, so good.

Next, public display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's actual chamber is not an official congressional or government recognition of a particular (Christian) religion, but public display of the same commandments in Indiana is, right?

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

OK.

Finally, displaying the Ten Commandments in the chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court is not a violation of the First Amendment, but displaying them in Indiana is, right?

Right – according to the U.S. Supreme Court and some lower federal courts, anyway.

If you're confused, that's OK – it's normal. Most thinking people are confused by this, since it reeks of hypocrisy and constitutional violation.

Nonetheless, this is exactly what the Supreme Court said earlier this week when justices, by a 6 to 3 margin, decided not to hear a case involving the public display of the Ten Commandments on a monument in front of a municipal building in a place called Elkhart, Ind.

I'll explain.

Elkhart city officials were sued a few years back by the American Civil Liberties Union because, allegedly, public display of the Ten Commandments on city government-owned turf is a violation of the Constitution's "separation of church and state" mandate that is supposedly buried somewhere in the First Amendment.

The problem with that argument is the same as it's always been: There is no constitutional language calling for a "separation of church and state" and, while I'm at it, I challenge any commie ACLU lawyer to show me where the Constitution actually says that.

Rather, the First Amendment says only this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The "separation of church and state" phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist group in the early 1800s. That phrase does not exist in the Constitution of the United States, and yet, it has been used successfully by the ACLU and other legal groups to prohibit public displays of any kind of religious inscription, portrayal, or characters in cities and states all over the country.

Worse, that means any number of federal judges have accepted this bogus argument as valid, yet none of them have ever been able to honestly cite that passage in any of their rulings because it simply does not exist in our supreme governing document.

More correctly, the First Amendment prohibits Congress (as in, the federal government) – not states or cities - from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion …" Furthermore, Elkhart didn't make "law" respecting a religion – it simply erected a monument that, obviously, Elkhart residents have a right to build if they so choose.

And why?

Because of another passage in the First Amendment, which specifically bans Congress and the federal government from prohibiting "the free exercise" of religion.

So why did the majority of Supreme Court justices refuse to hear this case – which means that the lower court rulings against Elkhart and for removal of the monument were left to stand as though they were proper?

That's a good question, but really, it's one that needs no answer.

As far as I see it, Elkhart officials – indeed, Indiana state officials – have no cause or reason to follow the federal court rulings in this case at all because the Constitution clearly prohibits federal involvement.

In fact, by even issuing this ruling, a federal judge in essence is doing what Congress and the federal government are prohibited from doing – making law banning a religion-based activity.

The first federal judge that got this case should have dismissed it out of hand, noting for the record that a city's own religious-based monument or inscription is not subject to review or approval by the federal government. There is nothing confusing about this.

Consequently, were I the governor of Indiana, I believe my first order of business tomorrow morning would be to publicly inform both the ACLU and the Supreme Court that a federal court's decision prohibiting a city in my state from erecting its own religious monument is none of Washington's business and out of the realm of authority of the federal judiciary.

Therefore, I would declare, that Elkhart monument will remain in place, and anyone – including federal agents – who tears it down will be arrested, tried, and, if convicted, jailed.

Mandates, rules, and laws that are not constitutionally permissible are therefore not valid, either, regardless of which federal agency, court or official says otherwise.

The Elkhart, Ind. memorial should serve as a rallying point for Indiana residents and all Americans, to stand up and say, "No more" to overreaching federal control. Enough, already.