1	177 F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 1999). The court observed that
2	"[T]hose are ordinary costs of graduation that the school would
3	pay whether or not the ceremony included a prayer." Doe, at 794.
4	Like the plaintiffs in Doremus and .Doe, Newdow's allegations
5	are simply that tax dollars were spent for the whole of the
6	inauguration ceremonies. Thus, under Doremus and Doe Newdow
7	lacks standing as a taxpayer.
9  C.   The recitation of a prayer at the inauguration does,not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
10       because.it is not the type of activity the drafters of the First Amendment intended to prohibit.
11
12       The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution
13  provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting the
14  establishment of religion ..."  U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.
15  Thus, even if Newdow has standing, his complaint must be
16  dismissed unless he can establish that the prayer violated this
17  provision of the Constitution.  Reciting a prayer at the
18  inauguration does not violate the Establishment Clause.
19       To the contrary, in a situation most analogous to the
20  instant case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
21 Nebraska's practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer
22  by a chaplain paid with public funds.  Marsh v. Chambers, 463
23  U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330 (1983).  Chief Justice Burger, writing
24  for the majority, did not apply the three-part test that he
25  himself set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105
26  (1971).  Instead, the Supreme Court's analysis focused on the
27  history of the challenged practice.  See Edwards v. Aguillard,
28  482 U.S. 578, 583 n.4 (1987) ("The Lemon test has been applied in
10