The only chain that was BROKEN was the tie to British law. After that we have a well established chain with NOTHING broken. The Articles of Confederation were legally set aside by the AUTHORITY of the Continental Congress which derives its authority from the several states blah blah... there's no break in the chain after the D of I.
Besides... how ridiculous is it to insinuate that our rights come from... nothing?? Then there is no such thing as "rights".
Honestly, and truthfully, the real crux of the matter is that you do not want to delve into English comprehension and structure, and furthermore, to simply understand that the government may act in the best interest of society when
restricting itself from displaying religious preference.
We are not discussing governmental limitation when referring to the 1st Amendment. We are discussing the enumeration and realization that government has no such rights, and legislation denying government religious freedom is most important, and indeed, necessary to maintaining an unpolluted government.
A judge, acting in his official capacity as a government official, on or about his official governmental grounds, does not have the right to display religious preference in his official capacity. The 1st does
not apply to him as an individual in this case.
All of your referencing that it does is due to your own misapplication and misunderstanding of the law.
Furthermore, the judicial system we have is a hierarchy. Any activity by government deemed to be religious in nature may be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is certainly within their purview. Then SCOTUS can and will make a determination as to the legality of the activity from historical perspective. In fact, when asked the question, the Supreme Court did exactly as I infer and looked to the historical framework laid down by the founders.
The question is not "Does the local court have the 'right' to display religious texts on its property as part of its architecture, decoration, or landscaping via the First Amendment?"
The questions
is "Does the local court have the 'right' to display religious texts on its property as part of its architecture, decoration, or landscaping?", period.
When the question was asked, the courts had to refer back to the Establishment Clause and its INTENT. This is different than the application of the 1st as applied to individuals, which is the incorrect argument you have been portraying here.
The court had to literally ask "What is the role of the Government, and what were the intended restrictions upon itself in regards to association with religion?"
The answer was found upon examining the Establishment Clause.
Keep focusing on the 1st Amendment bud and insisting it applies here, but it does not, unless, you are trying to figure out what the limitations on GOVERNMENT are regarding all things religion. This is why specifically, the Establishment Clause and its origination was studied.
As to your comment that I am straying from the point, you are absolutely incorrect. You don't even understand the topic, which is your failing, not mine.