Neil Parrott is reiterating the old states' rights argument, viz., that the states can do whatever they want to their citizens as long as it isn't otherwise prohibited.
In the not-too-distant past, segregation based on a trivial characteristic like race was considered a legitimate state's right and the Congress did nothing to disabuse them of that notion. Before that, slavery was considered moral and proper. Who protects a minority from what the majority considers to be moral? What is our last resort against tyranny of the majority?
The answer: the United States Supreme Court. If it's necessary for the courts to make rules because the Congress can't or won't, then so be it. The courts have been giving all kinds of orders for two centuries or more.
In the case of the Ten Commandments, the question is: How far can government go in endorsing a tenet of religion in light of the First Amendment prohibition against it? Strictly speaking, the Constitution prohibits all government references to religion.
The words "In God we trust" shouldn't be on our coins, for example, and display of the Ten Commandments should be prohibited in all government facilities -- including the Supreme Court building. Over the years, the court has cut religion a little slack. In the case of the Ten Commandments, it has waffled.
The Supreme Court is one of the Founding Fathers' better ideas; don't mess with it.
VIRGIL H. SOULE