+27

It seems that there is a better and easier path to argue for the conformity of that chaplain for Congress decision with the establishment clause of the First Amendment than I did in post 20. Instead of taking deciding to pay for chaplains as not in violation of that clause because it was for the want of an entity and not for respecting an establishment of religion, that paying decision can be seen made by that entity itself. In other words, this action by that Congress to provide payment to chaplains for itself can be seen as comprised of two parts. The first part is the decision by Congress to allocate money for itself which comes from its authority on the nation. The second part is the decision by Congress to use that money to pay for chaplains which comes from its authority on itself. Since at the root the role of Congress is to serve the nation not itself, the second part fits included within the first for presentation.