Yes it does. The laws of physics have been observed/tested/whatever and will never change.
The Bill of Rights can change, the laws of governance do change, and how judges/everybody else interpret both change. Therefore; laws always require the judicial review test before their constitutionality can be determined or demonstrated.
Then your analogy fails you fucktard. If the two are not comparable, you do not get to use the analogy.
You dont get to have your cake and eat it to.
The constitutionality of this measure and the florida measure have clearly not been tested so it is not a clear violation of the law because it DOES take a court case to see it. See above.
No. There has been enough precedent on the matter to tell rather easily. Yes. We use a precedent system, where we apply prior decisions to determine the probable legality of an action. Here, we use the three pronged lemon test
1) Does the law have a primarily secular purpose? The answer is no
2) Does the law have the effect of helping or hindering religion? Yes. By specifically singling out christianity for special treatment, it serves as a legal endorsement. Had they done something like authorize "I Believe [insert ideological symbol here]" then it would have been perfectly legal.
3) Does the law entangle government with religion. In this case the answer is yes.
This fails all three prongs, on their face. It does not take a court to say "this is probably unconstitutional" a trained monkey can do it. In this case, a biologist who likes to read supreme court briefs for fun can do it.
We do not NEED to test every single law. It is not a violation of the power of the courts for the legislature to think to themselves "This is probably unconstitutional and we should not pass it and waste taxpayer dollars in legal challenges"
Just as it is not a problem for science when we say "I cant synthesize Meta-nitrotoluene from toluene because the methyl group is an ortho/para director for the nitro-group"
