Next, regardless what activist justices wanted the country to believe about Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" words, the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following concerning government power to regulate (cultivate) religious expression. Jefferson had noted that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to clarify that the states had reserved the power to regulate our freedom of religious expression uniquely to themselves, regardless that the states had made the 1st Amendment to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …" --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
And regardless that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment applied constitutionally protected privileges and immunities to the states, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1, had officially clarified that the 14th Amendment took away no rights that belonged to the states.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1866. (last paragraph of first column)"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…" --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1871. (first or second paragraph of first column, depending on how you count paragraphs.)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (second paragraph from bottom in third column)
So not only had Jefferson clarified that the states had retained uniquely to themselves the power to regulate religious expression within reason, power now limited by the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment instead of how activist justices have spun it, but Bingham had clarified in general that the states sill had this power.
So the Jesus portrait is constitutional, imo, as long as it doesn't violate anybody's 14th Amendment protections. I'm sure that atheists can ignore portrait just like Christian students undoubtedly do.
The constitution explicitly states that the fed cannot establish a religion or deny freedom of religion. It doesn't say anything about what states can do.One way to disentangle ourselves from the beast that is Washington is to stop accepting their money.
In order to make up the cash loss simply encumber a portion of the locally generated federal revenues. In opther words, keep the locally generated money and cut the fed out of the loop.
BTW:Make sure your state militias and the state national guard are up to speed first.