historical tradition of opening "legislative and other deliberative public bodies" with prayer. 46 U.S. at 786, 103 S. Ct. at 3333. The Court observed, "It can hardly be thought that in the same week the Members of the First Congress voted to nppoini ;ind to pay a cluiplnin for e;ich I louse
and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they «
intended the Establishment Clause to fprbia what they had just declared acceptable." 463 U.S. a
i   •
790,103 S. Ct. at 3335. "This -unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged." 463 U.S. at 791, 103 S. Ct. at 3335.2
Formal prayers by Christian ministers have been associated with inaugurations since the inauguration of George Washington. Steven B. Epstein, Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism. 96 Colum. L.Rev. 2083,2106(1996). Prior to President Washington's first inauguration, a Senate committee resolved that '"after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice-President, and members of the Senate, and House of Representatives, [shall] proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine service, to be performed by the chaplain of Congress already appointed.'" Id, 'The Senate passed this resolution, and the House did likewise, with a minor amendment, the day before_, Washington's inauguration." Id. Immediately after the administration of the oath of office and President Washington's first inaugural address, the President walked with the members of the House and Senate to St. Paul's Chapel where the Senate Chaplain read prayers from the Book ol Common Prayer. Id,                                               .
"From President Washington's second inauguration in 1793 until President
2 In Marsh, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied the three part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman. 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S. Ct. 2105,2111 (1971), in holding that the chaplaincy practice violated the Establishment Clause. 463 U.S. at 786,103 S. Ct. at 3333. In evaluating the case, the Supreme Court did not apply me Lemon test. Instead, it focused on the historical significance of legislative prayers. Because the facts of the instant case are so similar to those of Marsh, this court will also not apply the Lemon test, and will instead focus on the historical significance of inaugural prayers.                                         -