Oye vey!
IANAL, but… I believe it falls under the category “who cares?”
A resolution means nothing. So, it has no force to do anything, so it forces nobody to do or not do anything, so therefore it cannot be in conflict with the constitution, federal laws, etc.
The legislature could pass a resolution that “PI = 3” or “PI = Square-Root(2)”; all that does is say something about the legislators voting for the resolution. Nobody is forced to teach that or use it in their business dealing, etc.
IIRC, typically resolutions are typically ways to express sentiment. “We sympathize with the tsunami victims” or “We dislike the North Korean government”. Other than spending your tax dollars to no effect, they don’t really matter.
To have something decalred unconstitutional, it has to compell you to do something (or prevent you from doing something) that is in conflict with an overriding constitutional clause or right.
In 1909, from memory, the Senate passed a Resolution naming the battle of Point Pleasant, VA (now WV) as the 1st battle of the American Revolution, not up north.
Nothing to do with the Constitution, but an idea on Resolutions.
Nothing. A state rep can introduce anything he likes but that doesn’t mean the leadership has to do anything about it. In this case the bill didn’t even make it to committee. It was DOA.
Massachusetts has a law that makes it a crime to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. For years we’ve had a bill introduced to repeal that law and once in awhile we’ll get a committee hearing where the local clergy testifies against it, but it usually dies on arrival just like this one.
Excellent point. Originally, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states; that much is clear. However, over the years the equal protection clause has been held to incorporate most of the Bill of Rights as applying to the states. That was in one of the three “civil war amendments”. But the idea that states could supersede the constitution (under the name “nullification”) directly contradicts the supremacy clause. Incidentally, the supremacy speaks of "this constitution,…, and laws passed pursuant thereto is probably what empowered the courts to refuse to enforce laws not passed pursuant thereto, that is declaring laws unconstitutional.
That* wouldn’t go over well in 1862. 
That’s one obviously reasonable interpretation. Another would be that the statement confers no authority to determine what “arises under” the constitution.
If you hire me to take care of your lawn and anything that “arising under” your lawn care needs, do I have absolute authority to determine what constitutes the limits of lawn care?
I’m a big fan of the Establishment Clause, but I find it vaguely reassuring that the Senate has a tradition wherein it acknowledges an authority greater than itself.
I think the issue that would prevent the law from being struck down is the issue of standing. So long as the law doesn’t actually mean anything in practice, no one will have standing to file suit against the law.
Almighty Ra, Lord of the Two Horizons?
After the Voting Rights Act of 1964 a Federal Judge was appointed to monitor the actions of the southern states. Almost a decade earlier, President Eisenhower used the National Guard to enforce desegregation of the schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. There are precedents, and they can be used again.
So at this point the legal argument is moot.
Usually, when a church violates the separation clause, the IRS denies their tax-exempt status. If a government does, it’s the Justice Department first, and then the FBI (who protected the first black student at the University of Mississippi as he enrolled), and then, as in Ike’s case, the National Guard (note, that is not the standing army).
Actually, in practice the IRS almost never denies tax exemption to churches, and that particular law is probably unconstitutional. It was snuck into an unrelated bill by LBJ as retaliation against his political enemies.
Secondly, it would be nuts to use the armed forces to attempt to get a state law changed. Armed forces can’t shoot a piece of paper.
There are many unconstitutional federal, state, and local laws on the books, but as long as they aren’t enforced, no one has standing to sue and they stay there.
This is essentially the same logic that was behind the SCOTUS Prop 8 ruling. To strike down a law that allows SSM, an aggrieved party would have to show that “them gays getting married somehow diminishes my god-ordained hetero marriage, to my detriment”, just to have standing to begin with. That is exactly what the court said the Prop 8 plaintiffs didn’t accomplish.
Nit pick:
Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne, which was opposed by the National Guard. Eisenhower then called the National Guard to duty under the US government, and Governor Faubus capitulated.